Alisinabookreview (1)

A “Book Review” of “Dr. [sic] Ali Sina’s” Understanding Muhammad and Muslims Contents I.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 8

II.

MY RESPONSE TO THE AUTHOR’S “$50,000 CHALLENGE” ................................................................... 9 The Author’s “$50,000 Challenge”.................................................................................................... 9 My $3,300,000 Challenge ................................................................................................................. 9

III.

WELCOME TO THE AUTHOR’S DELUSIONAL HATE FANTASY .......................................................... 10 The Author’s Messiah Complex ...................................................................................................... 10 The Book as a Traumatized Projection from the Author’s Mind .................................................... 11 A Window into the Author’s Childhood Trauma and Narcissistic Defense Mechanism ................. 12 The Author’s Desperate Schizophrenic Need for “Us vs. Them” (“New Me vs. Old Me”) ............. 14 The 1979 Iranian Revolution as the Catalyst for the Author’s “New Me” ...................................... 16 The Author’s Narcissistic Apostate-Assassination Fantasy ............................................................. 17

IV.

APOSTASY........................................................................................................................................ 18 Apostasy Per Hadiths ...................................................................................................................... 18 Apostasy Per The Quran ................................................................................................................. 21 Apostasy Per “Respected Authorities” ........................................................................................... 23

V.

PARROTING OF JUVENILE CLAIMS, SILLY LOGIC AND DEBUNKED “FACTS” ........................................ 24 There Have Been 270-280 Million Victims of Jihad ........................................................................ 24 Hubaal Became Known as Allah ...................................................................................................... 24 95% of Gujarat Riots over 250 Years Were Initiated by Muslims ................................................... 25 Muslims Are a Whopping 192 Times More Prone To Resort to Violence ...................................... 25 Most Terrorists are Muslims (and Islamdunnit) ............................................................................. 26 One (and ½) Data Point Can a Statistic Make ................................................................................. 28 Hadith Schizophrenia is Perfectly Rational: An Inconvenient Hadith is Always Fabricated …Except When it is Conveniently True .................................................................................................................. 28 This Book is Based on Mutawattir Hadiths ..................................................................................... 30 Muslims Are Evil Due to the “Islam” That >99.99% Have Never Even Read or Learned ................ 31 Eurabia: The Moozlims Are Coming!!! ....................................................................................... 33 The “Sodomy Fatwa” .................................................................................................................. 33

DRAFT: For Review Only Facts and Logic Are Optional: Quranic and Linguistic Analyses Are Not Even Necessary ......... 34 VI.

THE AUTHOR’S FINAL SOLUTION: “ERADICATE” AND “QUARANTINE” .......................................... 35 The Dark Side of Paranoid Delusions .............................................................................................. 35 The Author’s Backup Plan X ............................................................................................................ 36 Backup Plan X is Already 100% Clear to the Author’s Devotees AND the Author .......................... 38 My $100,000 Challenge to the Author That His Prediction Will Be 100% Wrong .......................... 40

VII.

THE AUTHOR’S TRANS-MILLENNIAL MEDICAL QUACKERY ............................................................. 40 Who Except the Author is Embarrassing Himself With This Quackery? ......................................... 40 All of the Author’s “Arguments” Are Just Speculation Deep .......................................................... 41

VIII.

TEMPORAL LOBE EPILEPSY (“TLE”) – A SNAPSHOT OF SHEER IDIOCY ............................................ 42 Credible Evidence of TLE Must Predate Prophetic Career – So the Author Creates It ................... 42 The Author Recycles His Same Manufactured Fact ........................................................................ 43 The Author Recycles His Same Manufactured Fact YET AGAIN ...................................................... 44 The Author Lies, or He Hallucinates TLE Symptoms That Don’t Remotely Exist ............................ 44 The TLE-Acromegaly-Impotence Connection That Logically Never Was ........................................ 44

IX.

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER (“NPD”) – MORE SHEER IDIOCY ....................................... 46 The Two Theses of the Author’s Book (per the Author) ................................................................. 46 The Author Can Accomplish the Medically Impossible (per the Author) ....................................... 46 The Author’s “Islam” Bogeyman is Actually the “NPD” of “Muhammadism” ................................ 47 Blasphemy Laws Come from Islam and Were Motivated by NPD? ................................................ 49 The Author Erroneously Conflates Sycophantic Adulation in Hadiths with NPD ........................... 51 Translated Hadiths Are Even Worse: Killing of Innocents is “Allowed”? ....................................... 53 Context-Free Hadiths Are Perhaps the Worst: “Terror”(ism) Commanded? ................................ 54 The Author’s Deliriously Unhinged NPD Claims Based on the Quran............................................. 56 More Deliriously Unhinged NPD Claims Based on the Quran ........................................................ 58 Islam is All About Rituals? ........................................................................................................... 63 Quran 48:1-2 Supports NPD Accusation? ................................................................................... 64 Completely Unhinged, Fact-Free Claims in Support of NPD ....................................................... 65 Quran 33:56 Supports NPD Accusation? .................................................................................... 65 Quran 4:65 Supports NPD Accusation? ...................................................................................... 66 NPD Meltdown: Author Now Has Hate Seizure While Foaming at the Mouth ......................... 67

X.

A SAMPLING OF UNREFERENCED AND UNSUPPORTED BALD CLAIMS ............................................... 68 Muhammad Was Named “Damaged/Rotten” as a Child ................................................................ 68 2

Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Was a Maladjusted Social Misfit as a Youth............................................................... 69 Muhammad Was Conceived for Status, and No One Tried to Harm/Persecute Him ..................... 70 Fasting is Unhealthy and Leads to Kidney and Liver Disease .......................................................... 71 Muhammad Demanded Submission to Him or Death .................................................................... 71 Muhammad Wanted to be King and Feared .................................................................................. 71 Muhammad Tried to Force Everyone to Convert ........................................................................... 71 Muhammad Demanded Submission, Jizya or Death ...................................................................... 72 Muslims Must Kill Other Muslims Who Don’t Emigrate (Follow the Group).................................. 72 Muhammad Supports Morally Wrong Ideas Even When He Rejects Them ............................... 72 Muhammad Reacted Violently to Prevent “Dropouts” from Islam ............................................ 72 Muhammad Was “Both Insane and a Liar”................................................................................. 73 Muhammad Suffered from Suicidal Depression and Impotence ............................................... 74 Muhammad’s Scribe Changed Revelations, Which Muhammad Accepted ............................... 74 Muhammad Violated the (Non-Existent) Law to Kill Apostates ................................................. 74 Muhammad Burned Muslims Alive in a Mosque Who Disagreed with Him .............................. 75 Muhammad Prohibited Drawing His Picture Because He Thought He was Ugly ....................... 75 “The Trinity of Islam” is Actually a Duo....................................................................................... 75 Islam is Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution ........................................................................ 76 Islam Caused Nazism, Communism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Mafia, etc.................... 76 Arabs were “Illiterate, Lazy and Indolent”, But Jews were “Educated and Prosperous” ........... 76 Arabs Are Inherently Very Evil and Stupid People per Their “Materia Prima” ........................... 77 The “Main Incentive” to Convert to Islam was Wealth and Sex ................................................. 77 Muslims (Especially Converts) Are Taught “the Virtues and Rewards of Jihad” ........................ 77 Muslims Are Commanded How to “Think, Act, and Feel” by a “Leadership” ............................ 78 In Islam, Rape of Non-Muslims and Lying is Allowed, and Stealing is Commanded................... 78 Lying in Islam is Called “Taqiyya” and Allowed (per Ghazali) ..................................................... 79 Muslims Will Tyrannically Abuse and Control Muslim Converts ................................................ 80 Adoption is Prohibited in Islam, and Zainab Marriage Was an “Abomination” ......................... 80 Reza Aslan is a “Sleek Snake” and a Secret Leader of “Stealth Jihad” ........................................ 81 All Crimes Can Be Islamic, and “Honor Killing” is Islamic Too ..................................................... 81 Per the Author, I am an “Ignorant Fool or Evil”, Unintelligent, and Dangerous ......................... 82 Muhammad Was a “Coward” in Battle ....................................................................................... 82 The Zionist Benefactors Behind the Islamophobia Industry Are an Ad Hominem Lie ................ 83 3 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Any Muslim-Majority Country That Is in Shambles is Caused by Islam ...................................... 84 Muhammad Was a Tyrant in Medina, and Non-Muslims Were Excl. from “Ummah” ............... 84 Islam Teaches Muslims to Fear People and Ideas ...................................................................... 86 Muslims Protesting Is Not Free Speech, but “Force” .................................................................. 86 Muhammad Brainwashed His Companions Using Physical Coercion ......................................... 86 Yanking on an Opposing Leader’s Beard is a Friendly Arabic Custom ........................................ 86 Verbal Admonitions are Coercively Equivalent to Physical Slavery and Torture ........................ 87 Killing Any “Unbeliever” is an Automatic Ticket to Paradise ...................................................... 87 Islam is Nothing but “Infernophobia” ......................................................................................... 87 The Only Sure Way to Paradise is to Hate, Fight and Kill “Unbelievers” .................................... 88 The Highest Form of Worship in Islam is Murdering “Unbelievers” ........................................... 88 Per the Author, I am a Beast Who Cannot Reason, Nowhere Near Like He Can ........................ 88 Muslims Must Advocate Unjust Violence to Conform with Their Community........................... 88 Islam is a Cult Based on Loyalty to a Man Who Advocated Evil ................................................. 90 Physical Slavery and Torture Case Studies Are Analogous to the Muslim Community .............. 90 Rumi Was an Idiot, Which Makes Him a Great Scholar of Islam to Quote ................................. 90 Circular Terrorist Logic Actually Makes Sense ............................................................................ 91 Muslims Viciously Attack Those Like the Author “Who Try to Help Them” ............................... 91 Muhammad Operated a Stealth Muslim Intelligence Agency .................................................... 92 Muhammad’s Stealth Intelligence Agents Were Ruthless Even to Believers ............................. 92 Muhammad’s Stealth Intelligence Agents Were Everywhere, Spying on Believers Too ............ 92 Jihad is a Pillar of Islam, and Killing is Always Evil....................................................................... 92 Islam is Anti-Democratic Because a 21st Century Picket Sign Says So ........................................ 93 “Democracy” Didn’t Even Exist in “Muslim Languages” until the 1890s .................................... 94 A Stealth Moozlamic Force is Discouraging Individualism Amongst Muslims ............................ 94 The Crusades Was a Defensive War Inspired by Jihad, as Was the Inquisition .......................... 94 Just About Every Secret Evil Society was Inspired by Islam ........................................................ 95 The Mafia Owes Its Existence to Islam........................................................................................ 95 The Church Oppression of the Dark Ages Was Actually Caused by Islam Too ........................... 95 Muhammad Worship (“Islam”) Inspired the Founding of the Order of Assassins ..................... 96 Thuggees Were Etymologists and Murdered Because “Taqiyya” Sounds Like “Thuggee” ........ 96 Apparently, Some Guy Named Bollas Christopher Channels Muhammad’s Thoughts .............. 96 XI.

A SAMPLING OF SOME VERY UNHINGED, HILARIOUS CLAIMS ....................................................... 97 4

Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Stealth Moozlamic Baddies Are Stopping Research on Islam and Muhammad ............................. 97 Ayatollah Khomeini is a Scholar and an Official Spokesperson for Islam ....................................... 97 The Ayatollah Khomeini’s Views are Shared by ALL Muslim Scholars ............................................ 98 Muslims Are Establishing a Worldwide Dictatorship to Enslave People and Science .................... 98 The Problem with Islamic Countries is Islam .................................................................................. 99 Muhammad Belonged to Nobility and Refused to Attend the Local School .................................. 99 A Cartoon Footprint Proves Muhammad had Acromegaly ............................................................ 99 Muhammad Was Filled With Rage Even as an Infant ................................................................... 100 Muhammad Was High on Euphoric, Hallucinogenic, Narcotic Gases in the Cave of Hira ............ 100 Khadija Was a Weak and Pathetic Co-Dependant of Muhammad ........................................... 101 Muhammad Was Suffocated and Anxious in the Company of Others ..................................... 101 Muhammad Was Bipolar Because He Might Have Had Fluctuating Desires to Fast ................ 101 Walking With Vigor Implies Catatonic Paranoid Schizophrenic Mental Stupor ....................... 102 Those Who Like Perfume and Get a Headache Have Acromegaly and Excessively Stink ......... 102 A Headache in Extended Desert Heat is a Sign of Acromegaly, Not Dehydration .................... 102 Muhammad Had a Humpback from Acromegaly ..................................................................... 102 Facts to the Contrary Prove With “No Doubt” Muhammad Was Impotent ............................. 103 “Making New Converts” is the Main Goal of Islam (Other than the Main Goal of Jihad) ........ 104 Raising “Jihad” Money is the Main Goal of ALL Muslims .......................................................... 104 Muslims Love and Seek Death, and Islam is a “Cult of Death” ................................................. 105 Muslims Are Both 100% Certain AND Uncertain of Their Salvation ......................................... 105 Muslims Are Expected to Devote Inordinate Time to Group Activities .................................... 106 Quran 29:8 Commands “Destruction of Family Ties” ............................................................... 106 Muslims Must Hate All Non-Muslims ....................................................................................... 106 Insulting Muhammad Transforms Intelligent Muslims into Dr. Jekyll Murderers .................... 108 Muslims Pretend to Pray, and They Do So Just to Provoke Non-Muslims ............................... 109 Those Who Call Themselves Muslim Are Arrogant Supremacists per Quran 3:110 ................. 109 The Mass Murderer Breivik Was Justifiably Motivated by Anger Against Islam ...................... 109 Muslim Patrols in “No Go Sharia Zones” Are the New Law in Some Western Towns .............. 110 Meccans, Like Non-Muslims of Today (incl. the Author!), Tolerated All Religions................... 110 Meccans Were Tolerant – They Physically Violated Private Muslim Prayers to Prove It ......... 110 Muslims Spilled the First Blood Because They Wrongly Resisted Religious Persecution ......... 110 Muslims “Abused” Inanimate Objects With Words.................................................................. 111 5 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Islam is Bad Because It Tells Slaves to Disobey Their Masters and the Social Order ............... 111 Islam is Bad Because It Abused the Respect of Slaves for their Slave Masters ........................ 112 Beating, Starving and Economic Deprivation of Muslims Was Not Persecution ...................... 112 Savagely Beating One’s Servant for Becoming Muslim is Not Religious Persecution............... 112 Freedom of Conscience Should Be Sacrificed for the Sake of Tribal Loyalties ......................... 112 The Meccans Respected Religious Pluralism and Didn’t Care What Muslims Believed ........... 113 The Meccans Had a Right to Extradite Muslims from Abyssinia for Rejecting Idolatry............ 113 Torturous Scorching Death for Not Rejecting Islam Was Also Not Religious Persecution ....... 113 Economic and Social Deprivation for Years Was Also Not Religious Persecution .................... 114 Imprisoning and Torturing Muslims Was Also Not Religious Persecution................................ 114 Religious Persecution Didn’t Happen and All Reputable Historians Are Wrong ...................... 114 “Live and Let Live” is an Ideology of Narcissism and Intolerance ............................................. 115 God Created Adam Defective, Knowing Mankind Would Sin ................................................... 115 Killing Treasonous Leaders is Wrong Because They Are Really Just Poets ............................... 116 Random TLE “Electrical Storms” in Muhammad’s Brain Produced the Quran ......................... 116 TLE Sufferers Are Actually Creative Geniuses in Disguise, and TLE is the Cause ...................... 116 Hypochondriacal Speculation and Projection Are Rigorous Research Methods ...................... 117 A Circular Argument is a Great Way to Make a Very Compelling Point ................................... 117 Muslims Will Still Exist and Enjoy Freedom After the End of Islam .......................................... 117 “Universally Accepted” “Sharia Laws” Can Also Be Soundly Rejected by the Quran ............... 117 The Jihad Pillar of Islam is Secretly Hiding Within the Zakat Pillar ........................................... 118 Stealth Muslims Have Infiltrated the U.S. Gov., and Obama is Working for Them .................. 118 Quran 25:52 Commands Muslims to Kill All “Unbelievers” Governing Them .......................... 119 There is a Severe Initiation/Hazing Ritual To Become a Muslim .............................................. 119 Muhammad is a Criminal for Potentially Forgiving a Crime ..................................................... 120 Believing in Muhammad is the Sole Purpose of the Creation of Every Person ........................ 120 The Nazis Were Inspired by an Obscure Hadith About a Specific Tribe of Jews....................... 120 Quran 2:96 Condemns ALL Jews, Not Just Those With Moses Who Rejected God .................. 121 Trans-Millennial Telepathy and Clairvoyance Are Valid Research Methods ............................ 121 Muhammad Lived Like a King, With Wealth and Riches Galore from War .............................. 121 Muhammad Plundered and Looted – and a Flagrant Lie Proves It .......................................... 122 Quran 9:123 Commands Muslims to “Murder” — and a Flagrant Lie Proves It....................... 123 The Big Picture: The “Big Lie” is the Author’s Self-Proclaimed “Shock Therapy” .................... 124 6 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only XII.

A REFUTATION OF THE AUTHOR’S WELL-ARGUED CLAIMS .......................................................... 125

XIII.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 125 Lies Have a Funny Way of Tripping Over Themselves – Especially the “Big Lies” ........................ 125 Our Messiah of “truth” is a Narcissistic, Self-Deluded Failure...................................................... 126 Apostate Poster Children Frauds? ................................................................................................ 127 Hatred in a Cage, Burning with Rage, Desperate to Engage ......................................................... 129 My Review is Still Incomplete, but My Job Here is Done – At Least for Now ............................... 130

** Yet Another Debate Invitation to Robert Spencer ** .......................................................................... 131

7 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only I.

INTRODUCTION

I read this book in preparation for my debate with Ali Sina, which will be held on Amazon, most likely right on the author’s book page, where I link to this book review: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Muhammad-Muslims-Ali-Sina-ebook/dp/B00BRWUQEA/ This review is not part of the debate agenda, nor is it intended to be any sort of “refutation of his book”.

Frankly, calling it a “refutation” would be an insult to my intelligence. That would be about as absurd as calling an academic’s critical review of a circus clown show a “refutation”. I think the best way to describe it would be a logical lampooning, since that is about as much respect as it deserves.

That said, one could argue that I have thoroughly refuted all of the author’s claims that he made based on proper arguments driven by objective factual and logical analysis, where he also addressed common rebuttals to his claims. All of these well-argued claims by the author, along with my rebuttals, are in the final section of this document before the Conclusion. Go there now if you want to skip my lampooning of his clown show.

Also, despite the length of my review, covering the entire book would clearly be beyond the scope of any “review”. It is only intended to set the stage for the debate and to explain quite fully why I found the book utterly unpersuasive, as the author requested. I have also deliberately ignored most of the book’s claims with respect to the four debate topics that have been mutually agreed upon, which are as follows: 1) Is beating of women permitted in Islam?

2) Is sexual slavery permitted in Islam? (with the potential to touch upon related misogyny topics, subject to mutual approval) 3) Does verse 9:29 (the linchpin of “dhimmitude”) advocate violent subjugation of non-Muslims?

4) Does the Quran advocate violent injustice against non-Muslims? (Author must prove that it does with up to X verse selections of his choice from the Quran, where quantity “X” to be determined later by mutual agreement.)

Although I can’t be expected to address everything here that the book addresses, I may update my review later with additional analyses of many of my omitted notes and highlights. The total count of all my notes and highlights is currently around 900, which means I haven’t covered even half of them in my review below. However, I tried to pick out the bulk of the most salient points, and many were excluded because they will be covered by the debate topics. As promised, I also targeted more breadth rather than depth, especially when notes were easy to transpose without further elaboration. I did do some deeper dives, though, on a few topics that were more central to the book’s theses or the author’s ideological bias.

As for the book, the bulk of the information directly relevant to real-world Islamophobia is in chapters 1 and 7. The rest of the book is mostly filled with just superficial conjecture and armchair psychoanalysis, with conclusions based on almost nothing but confirmation bias, circular logic, factual misrepresentation, and other logical fallacies. Nevertheless, there are still a sprinkling of potentially relevant facts in those chapters too, which I have included as well. Also, I have definitely not failed to cover all chapters in some detail even when relevant facts were sparse.

8 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only II.

MY RESPONSE TO THE AUTHOR’S “$50,000 CHALLENGE” The Author’s “$50,000 Challenge”

I have already stated that my review is not intended to be any “refutation” of the author’s clown show.

However, that will not stop his devotee loons from whining about how I still haven’t won the $50,000 challenge by proving the author wrong. This one is so delicious, I can’t resist. Here is the author’s challenge, per his own web page. http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge-2/ [D]isprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay $50,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who can disprove the following accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:1) a narcissist, 2) a misogynist, 3) a rapist, 4) a pedophile, 5) a lecher, 6) a torturer, 7) a mass murderer, 8) a cult leader, 9) an assassin, 10) a terrorist, 11) a looter.

Note that all 11 “charges” (plural) must logically be disproven before the $50,000 can be awarded. But this is not the biggest loophole in this challenge, as I pointed out on Twitter before I even started reading this book. The most absurd loophole is that it is impossible to prove a negative claim without access to 100% of the relevant observable data. In other words, the author is just engaging in a childish argument from ignorance fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ). In fact, every one of these charges would be impossible to disprove for any independent adult on the entire planet, past or present. So my response to the author on Twitter is the same as my response below.

And, not surprisingly, he has thus far utterly failed to cash in on my echoed challenge back to him.

My $3,300,000 Challenge To kick it up to a whole new level, my challenge is actually a $3,300,000 challenge, not merely a wimpy $50,000 challenge. I doubled the author’s $50,000 to $100,000, and I now offer this reward for disproving each and every accusation, not just all of them together. I am also throwing in two very public figures as well this time to sweeten my offer still more, just in case he complains that my offer would force him to reveal his identity. Here is my challenge to the author, copied word for word from his challenge, except with the extra reward and a lessening of his wimpy restrictions, as noted in bold: Disprove my charges against Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller logically. If you do, not only will I stop publicly opposing their views, I will publicly announce that Islam is not a true religion. I will also pay $100,000 U.S. dollars per accusation to anyone who can disprove any one of the following accusations that I have made against each of Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Geller. I accuse each of them (for the sole purpose of this challenge) of being or having previously been: 1) a narcissist, 2) a misogynist (a misandrist in the case of Pamela Geller), 3) a rapist, 4) a pedophile, 5) a lecher, 6) a torturer, 7) a mass murderer, 8) a cult leader, 9) an assassin, 10) a terrorist, 11) a looter.

For greater certainty, this implies a total challenge reward of $3,300,000 with respect to 33 separate accusations of $100,000 each in value (if disproven).

9 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Note how I am making this challenge regarding contemporary individuals who have access to the fullest possible knowledge of their own lives, so it should be dramatically easier for them to disprove these accusations vs. trying to do so for a third person who lived 1.4 millennia ago.

On Twitter, the author tried to avoid the utter humiliation of my counter-challenge by stating that I first have to have evidence to support these accusations. What an irrational dolt. No, I don’t. Evidence supporting a positive claim is of absolutely no relevance in proving the opposite negative claim! On the contrary, if there is zero evidence of the positive claim, then that should logically make it that much easier to prove the opposite negative claim. I am simply issuing these 33 separate accusations like the author issued 11 against Muhammad. So why isn’t he stepping up to the plate to claim $100,000 for each and every one that he can disprove? Surely he couldn’t be even more stupid than he claims Muslims are!

But that is not the funniest part. According to the author’s own implied assertion that all of these accusations can be disproven with respect to independent adults who are truly innocent, he is logically conceding that he and the terrorist-linked Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are all guilty as charged of being all of the following: 1) a narcissist, 2) a misogynist (a misandrist in the case of Pamela Geller), 3) a rapist, 4) a pedophile, 5) a lecher, 6) a torturer, 7) a mass murderer, 8) a cult leader, 9) an assassin, 10) a terrorist, and 11) a looter. Wow, what a group of sick, depraved, and hate-filled individuals – and by the author’s own logical admission too!

Yup, now it is my turn to laugh in his face while he continues to squeal embarrassingly about how my word-for-word echoed challenge is invalid while his challenge is somehow still valid. Oh how I love the public humiliation of a bigot.

III.

WELCOME TO THE AUTHOR’S DELUSIONAL HATE FANTASY The Author’s Messiah Complex

The author narcissistically and repeatedly promised via Twitter that “you will leave Islam after reading my book”. Also, in an assertion reminiscent of the Borg or a cult group leader, he arrogantly declared, “You will be one of us” once I finish his book. As if that were not enough, he even repeats this messianic arrogance in his book to the whole world: Those who read this book will no longer believe in Islam. The insight contained herein will end this religion. (Loc. 464) Thousands of Muslims have left Islam after reading this book. The evidence presented is overwhelming and the conclusion is inescapable. Understanding Muhammad will put an end to Islam. Before dismissing this claim as hyperbole, read the book and you too will come to the same conclusion. The challenge is to convince Muslims to read it. (Loc. 210) It seems that even messiahs have some self-doubt after seeing their book sales flop (or never even take off). But no worries, there’s always a blockbuster movie to pin those narcissistic hate hopes on instead: Mine is an intelligent, truthful, artful movie that will shake the world. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463571913651286016 ) 10 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Any chain can be broken. I have a powerful weapon, a movie on the life of Mu. If I get financing Islam will be history. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463570002914729984 ) Note in particular how he attributes the future end of Islam itself to his personal leadership and insights, which I will circle back to later. In effect, he is logically claiming a 100% apostasy rate for any Muslim who reads his book (or watches his upcoming movie), and he is also claiming that somehow all Muslims will follow his lead and eventually read the “truth” of his words, which alone will “put an end to Islam”.

Well, based on my reaction after reading his book cover to cover, he couldn’t have been more wrong or wildly deluded. However, we can at least give him points for his Jim Jones-like confidence in his power of persuasion. If anything, my reaction on finishing the book was quite the opposite of his expectation, and definitively anticlimactic - something like, “Uh, is that it - really?”

After further reflection, though, how could I expect anything of greater quality from such a delusional, Super-Apostate narcissist intent on saving the world from Islam. This is the guy that recoils with objection when he is subordinated in any way to Robert Spencer (a far more “successful” Islamophobe, based on the amount of money he rakes in from the Islamophobia industry). This is also the same guy who exalts himself as “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive” (per the author’s Wikipedia page).

Based on how much high-powered and well-paid competition there is out there for that hypothetical hate title, such a claim is extremely arrogant indeed. Somehow, it oddly doesn’t seem difficult to imagine him wearing a hijab as a cape to finish off his caped crusader self-image, and as a symbolic transformation of Muslims from “oppression” to the “truth that will set them free”.

The pomposity that the author exudes is everywhere. The author even narcissistically accepts the “honorary” title “Dr.” even though he is a Doctor of Absolutely Nothing! He doesn’t even have a fake honorary doctorate degree. He is just a desperate wannabe. He is an absolute laughingstock – a complete nobody. So he arrogates to himself this “Dr.” title in order to exaggerate his self-importance and perceived credibility. All of this is just yet another facet of what I call the author’s Messiah Complex: his delusional, narcissistic hate fantasy about how important he is and how his “truth” will somehow save the world from Islam and “set Muslims free”. It is not truth nor freedom that we should be worried about, of course. It is how the author defines “truth” and “freedom” that we should be worried about, as I elaborate upon below.

The Book as a Traumatized Projection from the Author’s Mind I did say before starting that I was somewhat worried about being too bored to make it through 420+ pages. The author said that was impossible because I would be too angry to be bored. Well, he was quite wrong about the angry part, but partly right about the not being bored part. I was frankly bored while reading most of the arguments based on facts from the Quran and historical sources, since I have heard virtually all of these before -- ad nauseum, in fact. I have been crushing these arguments for years online when Islamophobes parrot them like mindless zombies.

However, what I surprisingly found not boring was all the psychobabble, quack medical analysis and conjecture that was for the most part almost completely disconnected from historical reality and rational logic. I found them interesting not because they were persuasive to me, but because they opened such a compelling view into the author's mind (and to a large extent, many ex-Muslims’ minds) 11 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only with respect to what he was projecting onto Islam and Muhammad, and why. After all, why should anyone feel angry at mere irrationality? What I actually felt, and feel, can best be described as pity mixed, of course, with the entertainment of witnessing someone so proudly trumpeting his own idiocy.

I don’t feel pity for the author because “Islam is the Truth and this poor lost soul just can’t see it.” Not at all. That would be a disengaged, alienating response. My point is the exact opposite side of this coin.

I feel pity because he has been wallowing in all this negative energy of hate for decades while he dedicates his entire life to doing so. In short, all of this unnecessary hate is directed at what he thinks is Islam. What he actually hates is an "Islam" that doesn't exist beyond his own delusional fantasy and that of the medieval mullahs on politicians’ payrolls that he loves to cite. This is what I plan to demonstrate in our debates, and to touch upon below. In effect, the author is ironically suffering from the very same brainwashing about “Islam” that he describes and rejects in “Muslims”. He is then projecting that brainwashing and cult mentality onto a bogeyman religion deeply engrained within his own mind.

Both his childhood emotional inculcation into "Islam" and his current hate and self-loathing of it are preventing him from objectively addressing the facts about Islam in a rational manner. It’s like he is caught in a vicious emotional trap that he can’t escape. It seems he can only cope with his brainwashing by hating the imaginary bogeyman that his childhood self can’t stop schizophrenically identifying with.

The more he needs to hate it to push it away, the more evil he irrationally heaps on top of it. This is the vicious cycle of psychological projection. One projects oneself onto what one hates to avoid the trauma of self-scrutiny required to escape this vicious cycle.

A Window into the Author’s Childhood Trauma and Narcissistic Defense Mechanism Quite ironically, the author continually invokes the man-god Jesus in his chant-like mantra of “the truth will set you free”. (See Loc. 6942, Loc. 7108, Loc. 7955, and Loc. 8236 for examples of the author repeating this mantra, along with many more times on his web site and on Twitter.) He even finishes with this famous Jesus quote in the very last paragraph of his book. Yet both his “facts” and irrational logic continually scream willful ignorance, and anything but the truth.

Again, my assertion here on the source of the author’s powerful personal bias does not constitute a “refutation” of the entire book itself or even evidence that I am conclusively correct about the cause of the author’s delusional mental state. However, it is a compelling theory that can be readily tested and will very likely be proven true by the outcome of our debates. It is also a compelling theory supported by the author’s own words. We don’t have to wait for the debate, though, to accumulate plenty of evidence on this theory, per the author’s own words in this book. Let’s look at some now.

Stanley Milgram Experiment sheds light on a dark side of our human mind. It shows that most of us are capable of committing horrendous atrocities when obeying orders. If people are capable of killing when obeying orders from another human in authority, what they are capable of doing when believing that authority is God? There lies the immense danger of believing in evil religions such as Islam. And this explains why ordinary Muslims can abuse the non-Muslims with total clarity of conscience and never feel any remorse. (Loc. 6321)

12 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The conclusion about how “ordinary Muslims can abuse the non-Muslims with total clarity of conscience and never feel any remorse” is claimed with zero factual support, except, of course, in the author’s own delusional head. Therefore, such a sweeping, emotionally-charged generalization is quite likely a reflection of the author’s own traumatized childhood in being abused by his Muslim family and/or Iranian government. If factual support did exist, how difficult would it be to cite these orders of abuse from Muhammad? Yet he doesn’t. Muhammad actually gave Muslims the choice to participate in just war or not. No other human being can ever be "abused" in Islam, since this implies injustice, which Islam prohibits.

Below are some quotes where it seems the author is describing his own insecurities and vulnerabilities again, almost word-for-word, given that there is no substantive support for such accusations against Muhammad. Yet there is plenty of support for these accusations against the author, given how he abuses Muslims with outlandish, dehumanizing, and narcissistic “shock-therapy” vitriol, almost invariably with a supremacist tone of factual and logical infallibility, along with a self-proclaimed immunity to the emotion of hatred: The narcissist lies to himself and to others, projecting ‘untouchability,’ emotional immunity, and invincibility... For a narcissist everything is bigger than life. If he is polite, then he is aggressively so. His promises are outlandish, his criticism violent and ominous, his generosity inane. (Loc. 1876) Neglected children internalize a feeling of inadequacy. They come to believe they are undeserving of love. They react to this feeling of inferiority and defend their egos by puffing themselves up. They see their own weakness and feel that if others come to see it, they will not like them. So they invent fantastic stories and brag about their self-importance. Their imaginary power often originates from an external source. It could be their daddy or a strong friend. (Loc. 2115) The author’s self-important, messianic prophesying is a common theme in his quotes, which I will touch upon much more below. As for the author’s “daddy” issues, we will likely never get a confession – at least not an honest one – but my guess is that his daddy either 1) rejected him because of his apostasy, and then his daddy (and likely mommy too) neglected him, leaving him alone and unloved; or 2) one or both of his parents were persecuted or killed by fanatic theocrats during the Iranian Revolution, also leaving him alone and unloved. It must be a very sensitive topic, which is why I have never seen him talk in any detail about his parents (on his web site either). Perhaps he could prove me wrong, since there is only so much irrational sewage on his web site that I have waded through.

Not surprisingly, one can even see how the author self-describes as a “psychopath” in the way he projects his own vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and shortcomings from his childhood onto Muslims. In this way, he objectifies and represses his traumatized inferior identity as far away as possible from his now superior, narcissistic identity. He bullies and bullies Muslims until he can confirm in his own mind what evil behavior he is expecting from Muslims. His prophecies and perspectives effectively become selffulfilling. Ironically he even projects his own “projection identification” pathology back onto Muslims: The psychopath projects his own vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and shortcomings unto others and forces them to behave the way he expects them to (this defense mechanism is known as "projective identification"). (Loc. 6601) 13 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Everyone views the world from their own perspective. Honest people think others are also honest and vice versa. This is known as Projection. According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "split out" and then felt as being outside the ego. (Loc. 6655) Unlike the author’s arrogant and unconditional medical claims, this book review is not intended to provide any medically authoritative diagnosis of the author’s personality disorders – NPD, in particular. I am merely applying the same criteria and methodology that the author used in his book (e.g., Loc. 1772 for NPD) to come to a tentative conclusion on his personality disorders based on strongly symptomatic presentations. One can validate the author’s personality disorders by comparing the criteria for such disorders against the author’s delusional behaviors and claims.

If the author disputes such assessments of him (e.g., his NPD), then I would be more than happy to make a fun Twitter project out of it. We can reference the author’s checklists, or the DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 checklists, and then ask everyone to come up with the author’s quotes nailing each one of the symptoms on those checklists. Note, for example, that only five of nine criteria on the author’s NPD checklist are required to tentatively confirm NPD, per the author (Loc. 1758). However, I can probably make a compelling case on all nine checklist criteria for him, not merely just five. In addition to the many quotes already included herein, I know of many more that make the NPD case against the author quite compelling indeed.

But making this a Twitter group project would be a lot more fun. How could it not be when a clown is the center of attention? Unlike the author’s fact-free and dishonest claims against Muhammad (see below), the deluge of NPD and other behavioral facts stacked against the author demonstrate that he is a certifiable loon.

The Author’s Desperate Schizophrenic Need for “Us vs. Them” (“New Me vs. Old Me”) It is interesting how the author imagines projections by others that have no factual support, yet he can’t see his own projections, which are as clear as day given the demonstrable irrationality behind them. I demonstrate these irrational projections ad nauseum in the author’s many quotes below (see “Sampling Of” sections for details). That said, there is one example of the author’s projections that I would like to highlight here. It is his “us vs. them” projection of hatred onto all Muslims, especially devout ones: There are many similarities between Islam and fascism. Both divide people in two camps, “us” and “them,” while identifying goodness and superiority with "us," and evil with "them." This process involves scapegoating, dehumanizing, and blaming all societal problems on "them".

(Loc. 7234) The pathological projection of the author here is stunning. These words are coming from a fanatical promoter of ethnic cleansing – someone who completely dehumanizes all practicing Muslims as “inhuman” “savages” and whose objective is to “ban Islam”, “eradicate Islam”, and forcibly quarantine all of the “them” called “Muslims” away from the innocent “us” (see “The Author’s Final Solution” section for details).

14 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only I am not saying that many Muslims aren’t guilty of repugnant “us vs. them” hatred as well. However, it is not predominant, as I challenge the author in a later section. Also, such deviant attitudes of some Muslims is a moot point. The only relevant point here is that the author is a complete hypocrite, which he cannot see because of his own projection. His extreme, dehumanizing hatred of Muslims could not possibly be more “us vs. them” in implication, especially in his stated solution of expelling and quarantining all Muslims away from non-Muslims.

Now take a look at these interesting juxtaposed quotes with respect to how the author sees other exMuslims and then how he sees himself: I know of former Muslims who, despite having rejected Islam still feel a sense of loyalty towards Muhammad. (Loc. 6998) In an article titled Seven Valleys from Faith to Enlightenment[439], I described the ordeal of leaving one’s faith, and yet I feel no loyalty to Muhammad. I detest him. Most ex-Muslims detest him. (Loc. 7013) I find it very telling that the author feels the need to inform the reader that he “feels no loyalty to Muhammad” towards the very end of his book after expressing so much irrational vitriol against him, and in spite of “the ordeal of leaving one’s faith”. It seems almost childishly redundant, but yet he does it nonetheless.

My working theory is that ex-Muslims need to detest Muhammad so that they don’t have to feel the idolatrous loyalty that they were brainwashed with and retain even after becoming an ex-Muslim (as the author concedes). If they don’t keep renewing that projection of hate in whatever irrational way that they can, the deeply ingrained childhood brainwashing that they refuse to confront will just rear its ugly head again and again. In effect, “the ordeal of leaving one’s faith” must continue to be fought indefinitely. This “loyalty” to Muhammad is not direct, of course, but rather through the author’s (and other ex-Muslims’) still unbroken familial affiliations or desires, likely negatively motivated by a deep sense of loneliness and personal rejection. That’s how brainwashing works.

This schizophrenic ‘conscious hatred’ vs. ‘subconscious loyalty’ would certainly explain the author’s need to fight his idolatrous brainwashing with a psychologically classic “attack reaction” response. He needs to repress that brainwashing forcefully back to the subconscious depths from which it came. The author describes in vivid detail “seven valleys” of apostasy trauma before achieving “enlightenment. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that he is perpetually stuck in the eighth valley of hate – the deepest and darkest of them all.

Any normal, mentally stable person would, of course, have simply detached and walked away from his previous religion rather than indulge in bitter, futile vitriol against it for decades. I always find it so funny how many ex-Muslims continue to define themselves so obsequiously by what they once were, even decades later, rather than by what they are now. Almost every one of them that I have encountered is lonely, intellectually weak, and emotionally pitiful, filled with the same overcompensating irrational zealotry and arrogance that they supposedly despise and oppose in “Muslims”.

15 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The 1979 Iranian Revolution as the Catalyst for the Author’s “New Me” The author also invokes parallels from his own life in his hate narrative, but, in doing so, he unwittingly reveals more hints on the sources of his own hatred. I have found that many ex-Muslims invoke the theocratic Iranian Revolution of 1979 as the flash point of their childhood hatred of “Islam”, and this Iranian author is no different: The leftists who supported the Islamists in Iran during the 1979 revolution were the first to be hanged. Forming an alliance with one group to conquer another and then turning against them, was Muhammad’s modus operandi. (Loc. 5610) Given that the author provides no substantive personal details in the book on what happened to his family, even though we know his family experienced the oppression of this theocratic regime, we can only wonder how his family was treated, and how he must have been quite traumatized as a child by this “evil Islam” out to get him. Here is another quote, where he projects the paranoia from the theocratic Iranian Revolution onto the “Big Brother” of “evil Islam” that must have been behind it all.

The connection or parallel within the author’s mind is no longer a theory, but a demonstrable fact per the author’s own words: In Islam, everyone is a “Big Brother” and vigilante to others and is required to correct the conduct of the fellow believers and report them to authorities in grave cases. In Iran, after the Islamic revolution, children were encouraged to report any un-Islamic activity by their parents.

Also several youths were reported by their fathers and were executed. The informers were lauded and praised to encourage others to do the same. (Loc. 5623) A very obvious question jumps off the page here, of course, but the author fails to answer it, let alone ask it: So where does Islam actually assert any remote doctrine of a theocratic police state, replete with an army of “professional Muslims”, especially when God (per the Quran itself) prohibited His own messenger many times from being a warden of morality over Muslims? If even prophets and messengers of God are prohibited from being morality wardens, then what possible right could ordinary Muslims have to take on this oppressive role over “lesser Muslims”? Again, given that the author fails to support his claim against Islam here with any substantive facts, his perception and hatred of “Islam” appears to be nothing more than a reflection of his repressed childhood trauma in Iran being blatantly projected onto Islam.

This period in the author’s life must have been quite traumatic indeed. In this next quote, we get an interesting picture of how the theocratic (“cultist”) Iranian Revolution must have had a devastating ideological impact on the author’s family, one way or another, splitting it into an “us” vs. “them”: However, this is nothing but a sad tale of brainwashing and zealotry, and suffering, anguish and grief of a heartbroken mother. The cultists are unable to see the pain that they cause to their families. They fail to feel the agony of those who love them. Those who convert to Islam separate their ties with their family. (Loc. 5667) There is, of course, no such command in the Quran for converts to “separate their ties with their family”. This is utter nonsense. There is only a command not to obey one’s parents if they endeavor to make a Muslim commit idolatry (per Quran 29:8, discussed below). Again, without any rational foundation underlying the author’s claim against Islam, it definitely sounds like the author is suffering 16 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only from some seriously repressed childhood brainwashing and/or trauma, most likely due to his family rejecting him because of his vilification of Islam or because of the oppressive impact of the Iranian Revolution. In return, the author naturally projects that painful rejection and/or trauma back onto Islam as the cause to avoid taking this rejection too personally.

Like I said, ex-Muslims can be a very pitiful, and mentally damaged lot. The author is no different. His own desperate mental trauma extending over years and through “Seven Valleys from Faith to Enlightenment” is documented in his own words here: http://alisina.org/blog/2012/06/12/seven-valleys-from-faith-to-enlightenment/

The Author’s Narcissistic Apostate-Assassination Fantasy Let’s take a look at yet another example of the author’s projection, this time combined with the paranoid, narcissistic victimhood claim of ex-Muslims that they are being targeted by a legion of secret Moozlamic apostate assassins out to get them. These Moozlamic apostate assassins are motivated by some inexplicable, desperate urge to punish those who change their mind. Once again, the self— important, bogeyman-quality paranoia and the narcissistic victimhood of the author, like that of so many ex-Muslims, are best expressed in the author’s own words: A Muslim can’t hate anyone more than the apostates. Apostates, freethinkers, and critics are threatened and killed. Muslim dissenters are accused of blasphemy and lynched or executed.

(Loc. 5687) Muslims can hate no one more gutturally than the apostates. I know this makes you Jews out there envious. But sorry, not even the Jews can beat that. (Loc. 5691) Muslims consider it their duty to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Their hatred for apostates is unbelievably intense. There is nothing that a Muslim hates so feverishly than those who renounce Islam. They will not relent until they find the apostates, especially those who speak out, and kill them. Those who dare to defy Islam do so at their own peril. (Loc. 6553) These bare-naked claims are, once again, just more repressed childhood trauma projection by the author onto Islam, and more narcissistic exaltation of his “apostate” victimhood status. This narcissistic hate fantasy fits right in with his self-styled Messiah delusion in leading Muslims from Islam to the “truth” of apostasy.

Every superhero needs some arch-nemesis supervillains to fight, even if the defenseless, exposed public doesn’t have the x-ray vision to see them like the author can, let alone prove they actually exist. The beauty of these supervillains is that the only thing the author has to do to “fight” them in the public’s perception is to sit on his ass and eat Cheetos.

The author is clearly a very psychologically damaged human being. However, at least he is making a credible effort to play the part of the masked crusader, unlike Robert Spencer, who also claims to live in a secret superhero lair, when in fact it is public knowledge what town he lives in, what church he is a “Reverend Deacon” of, etc. All of this information has been available for years, yet not one Muslim out of 1.5+ billion “supervillains” has lifted a finger against him.

17 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The author also invokes a token Quran quote to provide some semblance of validity to his apostasy claim. But, of course, as we shall soon see, it is nothing more than yet another manufactured “fact”, purpose-built to further the cause of his hate narrative: “If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood.

Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him...” (Q. 47:23-28) Here Muhammad is promising Divine chastisement for the apostates, along with punishment in this world. (Loc. 5697) As usual, this is yet another blatant misquote. There is no "renouncing faith" phrase in here at all. Also, it starts with 47:22, not 47:23 as the author states. Also contrary to the author’s claim, what is being condemned here is not mere apostasy, but turning against the Muslims by fighting them and spreading wanton destruction against one's own Muslim relatives. How ironic that the Quran is actually decrying the lack of basic human respect for family ties and human rights, yet the author claims exactly the opposite. Also, any punishment implied here is very explicitly only in the hereafter. There is not even a remote implication of any punishment being commanded here for mere apostasy, nor is there even any mention of the word “apostasy”.

For the record, here is a much more accurate translation of this 47:22, which is the portion in dispute: Then, would you perhaps, if you were given authority, cause wanton destruction in the earth and cut off your ties of kinship? (Quran 47:22) The verse is not even condemning apostasy, but condemning non-Muslims who abuse power and wage war against their own family members because they are Muslims. I think this would be a great time to do a deeper dive into the apostasy topic, which is clearly very near and dear to the author’s narcissistic and paranoid heart.

IV.

APOSTASY

Contrary to incorrect opinion, there is no penalty merely for changing one's religion from Islam. It is only when there is treason (implying a definitive capital crime) involved that a penalty could be death, just as is the case in the U.S. for the penalty of treason against the state. Therefore, even the “American values litmus test” is met 100% here, contrary to claims of exactly the opposite.

Apostasy Per Hadiths That said, here is one laughable piece of evidence brought forth from the author and countless Islamophobes to show that there is a death penalty for apostasy: If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allâh's Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allâh's punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allâh's Apostle, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”[371] (Loc. 5704)

18 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only So what we have here are some idiots who literally burn a human being alive against Muhammad’s explicit command. Yet somehow these anonymous and self-proclaimed deviants committing an extreme moral depravity get to be designated as a worldwide authority on the validity of killing mere apostates in Islam!

Note how this hadith, along with Bukhari 52:260, 84:57, 84:58, and 89:271 (which were not cited here), are not referencing so-called “sunnah” at all (the practices of Muhammad), but what was done on two occasions by two individuals who killed apparent apostates because they thought they were following the “sunnah”. In one case, an “apostate” was burned alive, which even the original hadith narrators (and several other hadiths too) state was explicitly condemned by Muhammad. So clearly these fellows cannot be considered credible scholars of Islam!

More likely, however, this hadith is completely false, as has been shown by various scholars (yes, even Bukhari hadiths can be proven to be very unreliable). See http://www.examiner.com/article/apostasyan-unqualified-fatwa for details. Also, the situational context of both incidents is completely omitted, so there very well could have been a treasonous component. What that context was, we will never know for sure. This example, among many more, demonstrates the key problem in trying to create completely new laws of God from hadiths, which is explicitly prohibited by the Quran itself (see below).

However, we do know at least something about the hadith context. In one of the two incidents, for example (Bukhari 84:58), the individual was already shackled for some crime where he could be a danger to others (i.e., not mere apostasy), either during a time of war or treasonous subterfuge of some sort. Moreover, we also know that if it were not during a time of war or treason, the Muslims would have had to pay the mutually agreed blood money (about 100 camels, which was an enormous amount of wealth) between the Jews and Muslims for any wrongful killing of a Jew or else risk an all-out war.

Such was the standard penalty for either party during the Medinan period when they cohabited with Jews and pagan Arabs. The law of Qisas (death for murder, in the absence of forgiveness by heirs) may have only applied within the Muslim community, by the way, but it appears to have become the agreed law of the state after the conquest of Mecca.

The author then quoted Bukhari 83:17 as his only potential credible evidence supporting his claim, as reproduced here: Bukhari reported, “Allâh's Apostle said, ‘The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.’” [370] (Loc. 5700) (Bukhari 83:17) Note how this hadith ends with “reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims”, which begs the question of why there are two separate actions instead of just one. Another version of this hadith uses the word “abandons” instead of “leaves”, which provides a better hint. However, the answer is found in another hadith, which shows that Bukhari 83:17 is merely an abbreviated version of Bukhari 83:37 on this condition. This fuller version makes the treasonous component explicitly clear in the context of apostasy. The hadith specifies that the judicial death penalty was applied in these three – and only these three – circumstances by Muhammad.

19 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Note that only two of these circumstances apply per Sharia law, since the penalty for public sexual obscenity (i.e., “zina” when a married person does it, which is the Arabic word for adultery) is only 100 lashes for Muslims, not death. The Biblical death penalty (by stoning) appears to have been applied only to Jews when Muhammad was asked by Jews to judge on their behalf. Again, the unequivocal Quranic/Sharia law of 100 lashes applies to Muslims, per Quran 24:2, so it is impossible for the Quran to be overridden by any hadith.

The quote of the full hadith is as follows (my additions are in square brackets []):

By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) a person who killed somebody unjustly, i.e., was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse [i.e., “zina”] and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." (Bukhari 83:37).

Note how the act of treason is irrefutably clear and primary in condition #3 with the words “who fought against Allah and His Apostle”. The part “and became an apostate” is secondary to this primary violent action because it is an implied result of it.

There is another set of hadiths in Bukhari 84:64 and 84:65-68, which the author also did not cite, all of which are versions of the same single quote. These are referencing “sunnah” hadiths, so they are relevant as direct quotes of what Muhammad actually said or did (“sunnah”). However, there are clear contextual differences in this quote vs. the other incidents above: 1) they are talking about a future hypothetical event and 2) the issue is not apostasy at all, but rather treason by a hostile force (i.e., a group acting like Muslims to infiltrate and destroy the Muslims). Here is the quote: I heard the Prophet saying, “There will appear in this nation ... a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them).... So, wherever you find them, kill them” (Note: I excerpted and combined two hadiths of the same incident here for brevity).

The element of violent treason, in combination with an obviously insincere conversion to Islam, is abundantly clear here, so these hadiths add nothing to the debate about the potential penalty for mere apostasy.

There are other hadiths as well that show a general consistency, where those who were killed were merely acting as Muslims for the sake of subversion against the Muslim community. In other hadiths, the use of the phrase "apostates as renegades" rather than just "apostates" highlights the treasonous element. And, as I already mentioned elsewhere, there is indeed at least one example where someone became an apostate peacefully – directly in front of the Prophet Muhammad, no less – but was not killed or even threatened with any penalty whatsoever: Narrated Jabir: A bedouin came to the Prophet and gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and said (to the Prophet), "Please cancel my pledge (of embracing Islam and of emigrating to Medina)." The Prophet refused (that request) three times

20 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only and said, "Medina is like a furnace, it expels out the impurities (bad persons) and selects the good ones and makes them perfect. (Bukhari 30:107) By contrast, there is not even one single hadith that shows any definitively peaceful apostasy that was ever punished by Muhammad, let alone by the death penalty. Now it is my turn to challenge the author: prove me wrong with just one reputable fact example, as I have just proven him completely wrong.

Apostasy Per The Quran Now that we have covered the historical hadiths, let’s see what the Quran says about apostasy, which is the definitive and sole source of God’s law. Verses from the Quran make it clear that it is possible to become an apostate in Islam without worldly punishment of any sort and then repent and still come back to Islam. The only punishment would be in the hereafter for those who harden in their disbelief and don’t return to Islam before dying. The Quran is most certainly not silent on apostasy at all, but it is completely silent on any punishment being commanded in this world in every case, without exception.

Here are some of the key verses proving this point (again, my notations are added in square brackets []): How can God show the way to those who, having come to faith [i.e., become Muslim], turned away, even though they had borne witness that the messenger was true, and the clear signs had reached them? For those – their recompense is that on them rests the curse of God, and of the angels, and of humankind, all together [i.e., damnation to Hell]. Therein [in Hell] will they abide. Neither their punishment be lightened, nor will they be granted any respite. But those who repent and reform, God is surely forgiving and merciful. (Quran 3:86-89) Those who accept the faith, then disbelieve, then return to it, and deny once again and increase in disbelief, will not be forgiven by God or be guided by Him. (Quran 4:137) Whomever denies having once believed – unless he is forced to do so while his heart enjoys the peace of faith – and opens his mind to disbelief will suffer the wrath of God. Their punishment will be great. (Quran 16:106) [Note the critical importance of heartfelt niyyah here, as opposed to empty words of denial or a false shahada given under compulsion] There is no compulsion in religion. (Quran 2:256) If your Lord had so willed (and, denying them free will, compelled humankind to believe), all who are on the earth would surely have believed, all of them. Would you, then, force people until they become believers? (Quran 10:99) Now let’s see what conclusions logically flow from the facts of the Quran on apostasy, which override any possible hadith to the contrary: 1. The punishment (“recompense”) for apostasy (i.e., the rejection of God, to be more accurate) is made explicit in the Quran as severe punishment in Hell, with no mention or even allusion towards any judicial punishment in this world, let alone the death penalty as the most severe punishment of all.

2. It is quite possible to become an apostate and then become a Muslim once again, thereby begging the obvious question, How could a dead person (a zombie ex-Muslim?) punished for the 21 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only first apostasy offense ever be allowed the chance to repent and reform with a true niyyah to become a Muslim once again?

3. Punishment for apostasy would be a gross violation of verses 2:256 and 10:99, which make freedom of conscience and faith inviolable.

4. These verses combined with so many other verses in the Quran emphasize that the punishment for rejection of God is severe, but always in the hereafter, not a judicial punishment in this world.

Some Islamophobes and “Muslim” fanatics also point to verse 4:89, and the author is no exception: Muhammad’s orders are unequivocal: “But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.” (Q. 4:89). (Loc. 6555) The hypocrites spoken of in this verse claim to be Muslims, but they have likely rejected Islam per their own violent actions (or direct support thereof) against Muslims. Muslims are commanded in Quran 4:89 to fight them, not because they are mere apostates (this word is not even used here), but because they have turned against the Muslims and fought the Muslims. This is made clear by the end of verse 4:90: “If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” In other words, the key criterion is not apostasy, but the element of treasonous and violent action.

Thus, the only verses of the Quran that advocate the killing of hypocrites (not “apostates”, which is a word not even mentioned here) are for those who fight against Muslims or aid others in fighting against Muslims. Otherwise, the killing of hypocrites who demonstrate their potential apostasy by merely refusing to help the Muslims is explicitly forbidden (per Quran 4:90).

Actually, the initial wording in verse 4:90 is part of the same sentence as the fight command in verse 4:89, so it directly qualifies and restricts its applicability. In other words, this part of verse 4:90 cannot even be called “context” of verse 4:89. It is literally part of the same, inextricable sentence as verse 4:89, and therefore cannot possibly be read without it under any circumstances. This full 4:90 verse is worded as follows, along with the connecting wording from verse 4:89: But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no protectors or helpers from their ranks, (Quran 4:89) Except those who take refuge with a people allied to you, or those who, weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you. If God had so willed He would surely have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them. (Quran 4:90) In other words, the simple message is fight those who fight you, and desist when they stop, which is a universally ethical standard of warfare.

Note also how even hypocrites (potential apostates) can be given refuge by Muslims. Quran 4:90 refers to hypocrites who “come over” to the Muslim side simply because they are weary of fighting the Muslims merely out of a compelled duty to their tribe, who is at war with the Muslims. Therefore, per this verse, these potential apostates would be seeking refuge with Muslims without being forced to fight their own tribe (“people”), as their own tribe likely forced them to fight Muslims. Instead, in this way, they could remain neutral in the war without actually “joining” the Muslim side against their own tribe.

22 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only In other words, they would be left alone, neutral and at peace, by the Muslims, who are commanded to keep this peace by God. Islamophobes also always omit the entirety of verse 4:91 whenever they quote verse 4:89 or the latter part of verse 4:91. In particular, they exclude the critical precondition of self-defense. Here is the entire verse: You will find persons who, while wishing to live in peace with you as well as with their own people, turn to civil war the moment they are called to it. If they do not keep away from you, nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them wherever they are. We have given you a clear sanction against them. (Quran 4:91) Again, fight those who insist on fighting you is the message, which is a universally valid justification for war. Verses 4:89-91 are thus 100% in compliance with the universal principles of the Just War Doctrine.

Based on my extensive experience, it is almost without fail that Islamophobes will completely omit verses 4:90-91 as if they don’t even exist – and, once again, the author is no exception. It is no wonder, of course, why they do so. As soon as these verses are quoted as direct qualifications of verse 4:89, the “kill all apostates” interpretation becomes absolutely ludicrous.

Apostasy Per “Respected Authorities” Many Islamophobes then desperately resort to the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy by asserting that the death penalty for apostasy is universally accepted by Muslim scholars, especially the “most respected” ones. A variation on this fallacy is the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, which is a blind appeal to "tradition”, usually originating from medieval mullahs on politicians’ payrolls that both Islamophobes and fanatics love to quote. However, even these fallacious invocations of “respected authority” are completely bogus with respect to the asserted fallacy. For those who want to see many respected opinions from leading Muslim scholars on this matter, check out the following page on TAM as just one example, where a lot of links to these opinions are provided, the bulk of which support my arguments made here: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/apostasy_and_freedom_of_faith_in_islam/url Also, over 100 leading Muslims have signed a public statement declaring the “Freedom of Faith and the Freedom to Change one’s Faith”. The link to this is included in the link above. I challenge anyone to find me a comparable list of leading Muslims who are not on politician’s payrolls asserting the opposite claim, that the death penalty should apply to mere apostasy.

Finally, in the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, there is no death penalty for apostasy. For the ones where it is still on the books, it is rarely, if ever, enforced. This implies effective abandonment of the law. Yet such laws remain on the books primarily because it would be politically inexpedient to advocate removing them relative to any marginal increase in political popularity from doing so.

23 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only V.

PARROTING OF JUVENILE CLAIMS, SILLY LOGIC AND DEBUNKED “FACTS”

Before we cover a broader swath of the author’s claims and the two main theses of his book, let’s take a look at a few of the author’s claims to assess the general quality, integrity and sincerity of his effort to present “the truth” about Islam. It doesn’t take much to gauge the extremely poor quality of both his effort and this purported “truth”. Surprisingly, he relies on many of the same hackneyed claims that have already been debunked, and his manipulation of “facts” and “logic” is embarrassingly clumsy. It also doesn’t take much to see that the author’s target audience is a bunch of drooling morons who want to be told exactly what they want to hear about Islam. The author sounds quite compelling to this target audience because the author himself is right in that audience with them.

There Have Been 270-280 Million Victims of Jihad One evidence of the author’s idiocy is how he is so easily and gullibly persuaded by juvenile claims without any factual support. Like so many Islamophobes, he falls for a bogus claim repeated on the Internet ad nauseum from a washed up physicist (Bill French, aka Bill Warner) regarding the well-worn 270-280 million “victims of jihad” (or the more lugubrious and melodramatic “tears of jihad”). He regurgitates this laughable claim as follows: Some estimates put the number of people massacred by Islamic mujahedeen throughout these fourteen centuries at 280 million. If we add the number of Muslims butchered by other Muslims the sum becomes staggering. (Loc. 438) With the massacre of 280 million non-Muslims since Muhammad, the number of people Muslims have sacrificed at the altar of Allâh exceeds 200,000 per year. (Loc. 6800) There is no historically validated support for this oft-repeated number at all. It is literally pulled out of someone’s backside, per multiple debunkings, such as these: 1) http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/lgf-fact-checking-pamela-geller-%e2%80%98270million%e2%80%99-victims-of-islam/ and 2) http://avari.typepad.com/avari/2010/10/jihadis-killed-270-million-people.html and 3) http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the-myth-of-the-murderousmuslim/0019618.

Whoopsee – how embarrassing is that?

Hubaal Became Known as Allah Another deity, Hubaal, became known as Allah (literally ‘the god’). (Loc. 7549) This is another embarrassing and very hackneyed assertion without evidence. The reason why is because this claim is utterly false. Hubaal was the god of the moon. The word “Allah”, by contrast, simply comes from a contraction of the two root words “al ilah”, meaning “the God”, as in “God” with a 24 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only capital “G”, as even the author concedes. This laughable “moon god” claim is completely debunked in this detailed series here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-allah-is-the-moon-god-nonsense-could-be-the-stupidest-antimuslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-i/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-allah-is-the-moon-god-nonsense-could-be-the-stupidest-antimuslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-ii/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-allah-is-the-moon-god-nonsense-could-be-the-stupidest-antimuslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-iii/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-allah-is-the-moon-god-nonsense-could-be-the-stupidest-antimuslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-iv/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/the-%e2%80%9callah-is-the-moon-god%e2%80%9d-nonsensecould-be-the-stupidest-anti-muslim-conspiracy-theory-yet-page-v-conclusion/

95% of Gujarat Riots over 250 Years Were Initiated by Muslims Soon after citing this last nonsensical “fact”, the author cited another unsubstantiated statistic on the cause of 95% of the riots over 250 yrs. in Gujarat being “initiated by Muslims”. Wow, apparently the Hindu PhD student he referenced also had a time machine to verify all the claims of who initiated what that long ago in the midst of chaotic riots. The propaganda purpose of this “research” is blaringly obvious to cover up the proven ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Gujarat with the complicity of the antiMuslim government itself, along with the provably racist ideology behind it: http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/narendra-modi-and-the-rise-of-indias-neo-fascist-far-right-thefacts/comment-page-2/#comment-260895 http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/nazism-and-narendra-modi-the-ideological-influence-on-indiasnext-prime-minister/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Gujarat-Genocide-Fundamentalist-Cleansing-ebook/dp/B0060RWDTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Gujarat_riots Isn’t Google wonderful? I highly recommend it to the author to avoid such highly embarrassing citations in the future, especially in a book.

Muslims Are a Whopping 192 Times More Prone To Resort to Violence But, believe it or not, that is not the most idiotic point the author makes on the Gujarat citation. This is what happens when you try to add whip cream and a cherry on top of three scoops of ice cream, all sitting on a flimsy little cone. Based on this single Gujarat “study”, the author sweepingly concludes the following: 25 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only This means that Muslims, as a group, are a whopping 192 times more prone to resort to violence than others. (Loc. 443) Oh yes, indeed – “the truth will set you free”. With “truth” this obvious to the author’s readers, who needs real statistics and data to back it up?

Most Terrorists are Muslims (and Islamdunnit) The guilt by association fallacy between 1.5+ billion Muslims and a tiny percentage of politicallymotivated terrorists is a classic Islamophobe claim. However, the whip cream and cherry on top embarrassment comes when this simple association fallacy is extended to the claim that “most (or nearly all) terrorists are Muslim”. This is the more general version of the previous “192 times more prone” claim. Here is what the author says or endorses in making this claim: Not all Muslims were terrorists, although it was unequivocally but agonizingly true that most terrorists were Muslims. (Loc. 6028) The instigators of all savageries are always Muslims. (Loc. 7677) Muslims, collectively suffer from low self-esteem. They are not the only evil doers in the world but most human rights abuses, violence, and terrors are perpetrated by them. (Loc. 7122) I love it when individuals step out on a limb to assert that a bare naked bigoted claim is “unequivocally but agonizingly true”, or when they make absolute claims using words like “…all savageries are always Muslims”. It becomes that much more delicious when they are proven wrong, especially when it is so easy to do so. Here are some links, among many others, to debunk this well-hackneyed propaganda: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/rand-report-threat-of-jihadist-terrorism-exaggerated/ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/claim_that_all_terrorists_are_muslims_ignor es_history/0012587 http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/04/juan-cole-terrorism-and-the-other-religions/ Original article of last link here: http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/terrorism-other-religions.html As for all those “savageries” committed by Muslims against non-Muslims, where are they predominant outside of active or post-revolutionary war zones? In such areas, vigilante lawlessness is the rule, not law, let alone “Sharia law”. Also, the victims of about 90% of terrorist attacks are Muslims. And that is according to the definition of “terrorism” per the U.S. government, which of course arbitrarily excludes the massive number of terrorist attacks by the U.S. itself on Muslim civilians. American civilians, by contrast, are up to 10 times more likely to be killed by a falling TV (41 in 2012 alone) than a terrorist attack by Muslims. Even after factoring in all terrorist attacks by anyone, American civilians are still more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist:

26 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/youre-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-toddler-than-aterrorist.html The paranoid hysteria on terrorism has spun completely out of control.

The links above explain how the perceived “facts” on terrorism are wrong. However, what about the “logic” of terrorism with respect to its cause. There is so much research out there totally debunking the Islamophobia narrative, but let me just highlight a couple for now to avoid a significant digression.

Loonwatch has already shown in the following article how the victims of terrorism are overwhelmingly Muslim and how there is an undeniably obvious correlation between the levels of occupying troops and the levels of terrorism, thereby debunking the traditional hate narrative: http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/most-victims-of-islamic-terrorism-are-muslims-and-why-americais-to-blame-for-it/ Also, it is not war that incites terrorism so much as occupation, as scholarly research consistently shows.

Here is a quote from “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think”: ...every major suicide-terrorist campaign – more than 95% of all the incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw [from the occupation of foreign territory] (p. 77).

This purely political motivation is corroborated by a quote of the same research in an October 2010 Foreign Policy Magazine article: More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day.

This conclusion is further elaborated upon in the following Loonwatch article: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/its-the-occupation-stupid/ Even the famous Declaration of War on America by Ossama bin Laden in 1998 was motivated entirely by the universal political argument of self-defense against occupation (this latter word is mentioned again and again in OBL’s short one page declaration), not by a religious kill order against Christians and Jews.

This outrageous twisting of political ethics is not all that different from the oxymoronic terrorist ethics of “pre-emptive self-defense”, as espoused by U.S. foreign policy to “shock and awe” the “enemy”.

Ossama bin Laden also unequivocally stated that he still would have attacked the U.S. to defend his Arab brethren from occupation even if he had retained the pagan religion of his ancestors! This is based on the research of Scott Atran, perhaps the foremost researcher in the field with respect to the root causes of terrorism. He also happens to be an atheist, not a Muslim. The point he makes on Bin Laden’s motivation for 9/11 is discussed in the following excellent presentation (see around the 4:50 mark, but watching the whole presentation is highly recommended): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJl2-AdLt48

27 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The argument that "Islamdunnit" is ultimately completely bogus. However, this juvenile hate narrative is quite compelling to the willfully ignorant. Such individuals are easily convinced by classic propaganda tricks, such as an endless repetition of cherry-picked anecdotal association fallacies, manufactured “facts”, and the cornerstone fallacy of conflating (a priori) political motive with provably false (post facto) religious justification.

One (and ½) Data Point Can a Statistic Make OK, now let’s move on to another example of the author’s idiocy and juvenile thought process. Let’s see what passes for data-driven analysis in his world. The author flexes his “doctoral” statistical prowess once again with this hilarious gem: …Ms. Daziel and Dr. Deep surveyed a pool of patients experiencing at least one epileptic seizure per month. Of this pool, 30 owned dogs, and five percent of these 30 individuals "reliably" reported that their dogs demonstrated distinct behavior signifying the onset of a seizure. (Loc. 3509) Note that this was the author’s rebuttal to the seemingly miraculous kneeling of Muhammad’s camel (while he was on it) before or during the time when he received a new revelation. Well, it doesn’t take more than a couple of brain cells to conclude that 5% is a very poor correlation. But what’s worse is that 5% of 30 dogs is only 1.5 dogs! Uh, a single data point of one dog (plus ½ a dog!) does not a statistic make. Our Messiah of “truth” found this statistical analysis quite compelling, though, so I guess that means we must somehow find it compelling too.

I think he should have stuck with his initial thought on this topic before he stuck his neck out to make such an embarrassing “statistical” point. These were his first words on the topic, where he downplayed this inconveniently “miraculous” hadith, and many others of a similar nature, as likely fabrications.

Ironically, a reasonable person could have actually agreed with such an argument instead of the foolish one he actually made: Muslims often exaggerate and attribute false miracles to Muhammad. This is quite normal for cultists who are fond of attributing miracles to their gurus. (Loc. 3501)

Hadith Schizophrenia is Perfectly Rational: An Inconvenient Hadith is Always Fabricated …Except When it is Conveniently True Following upon this last point, it's funny how strongly the author believes that so many hadiths were fabricated out of a desire to idolize and glorify a mere messenger of God, which is undeniably true to some extent; and yet he invokes with incredible gullibility these very same types of idolatrous hadiths as evidence against Muhammad when it suites his juvenile arguments. I will elaborate upon this theme more below, but here are four more examples of the author’s schizophrenic dismissal of hadiths as “apocryphal stories”, “forgeries”, and “weak and dubious” that must have been fabricated whenever they don’t fit his hate narrative:

28 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only These are all apocryphal stories that Muslims fabricated to give credibility to this most bizarre tale. (Loc. 3326) There are tens of thousands of short stories about Muhammad. Many of them are forgeries, others are weak and dubious. (Loc. 1739) The story of Mabur exposing his awrat to prove his innocence is clearly a fabrication. (Loc. 4554) There are many miracles attributed to Muhammad even though he confessed in the Quran that he could not perform any.[348] Those alleged miracles [i.e., per hadiths] are the work of the sycophants. (Loc. 5336) The author’s schizophrenic attitude towards miracles is truly comical to behold. On the one hand, he needs these hadiths to be authentic to support his claims of “narcissism”, “delusion”, etc. However, on the other hand, he needs these hadiths to be obvious fabrications to illustrate how cults work in glorifying their leader, which means the stories can’t possibly be true. For example, below is the author yet again debunking the authenticity of all these “miracle” hadiths, and he even flatly asserts that they were completely made up (“falsely attributed to their prophet”) by others: Despite such outlandish claims, when challenged by the sceptics, the self-appointed prophet repeatedly denied being able to perform miracles. He admitted that although other prophets were given the power to perform miracles, his only miracle was the Quran. “The Prophet said, There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allâh revealed to me.” [386] So, why would the believers insist to falsely attribute miracles to their prophet? (Loc. 5841) And in the very same section where these two quotes are, the author states the following, which blatantly contradicts his assertion that others made up these miracles later: Later on (a pot full of) water for ablution was brought to Allâh's Apostle. He put his hand in that pot and ordered the people to perform ablution from it. I saw the water springing out from underneath his fingers till all of them performed the ablution (it was one of the miracles of the Prophet).[380] In another hadith we are told that Muhammad multiplied the bread.[381] Elsewhere we read he struck a huge solid rock with his spade and the rock became like sand.[382] Or, he blessed a meal that was barely enough for four or five and with it fed an army.[383] There are dozens of miracles attributed to Muhammad. Most of them were claimed by himself. They are miracles that no one but he saw. One such miracle is his claim to have spent a night in the town of the jinns. In another place he said that a group of jinns in Medina had embraced Islam.[384] In one fantastic story that I quoted in Chapter Two, was his claim that he struggled with Satan and subdued him. His famous story of Mi’raj is recorded even in the Quran. These stories were either hallucinations or concocted to impress the gullible. (Loc. 5818) So the author asserts here that these stories must have been elaborately concocted miracles or hallucinations by Muhammad, but not fabrications by others. In other words, now the author is claiming like a zealot that these outlandish hadiths are authentic in narration/transmission. Although this now implies that these “miracles” could actually be true, he ignores that complication so that he can assert 29 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only the alternative claim that Muhammad himself made up these miracles due to his “narcissism”, “delusion”, etc. The reader is left wishing for the author just to make up his mind already – were these hadiths fabrications by others or wild delusions of Muhammad? As for me, I enjoy the fact that the author asserts both contradictory claims at the same time, and without even blinking! It’s much more entertaining that way.

This Book is Based on Mutawattir Hadiths The author’s hadith deceptions are just beginning. But let me point out another major one that can be very easy for a casual reader to miss. Here is an excerpt in the book’s Introduction explaining why hadiths are so reliable (again, when it is convenient for them to be so, with the most important part emphasized by my bold highlighting): In the biography of Muhammad, however, we find thousands of accounts that don’t portray him as a holy man. He is often depicted as a [sic] vile, ruthless, cunning, and a pervert. There is no reason to believe these stories are false. It is not characteristic of believers to portray their prophet as a villain. So if such stories exist, narrated by his companions and votaries, those who believed in him and loved him, in such a [sic] large numbers, it is likely that they are true. (Loc. 419) Traditions that are diffusely recurrent are called mutawattir. These traditions have come down to later generations through chains of narrations, involving diverse transmitters. It is virtually impossible that all of them, who often lived in different localities and espoused (at times radically) different views, would have come together to fabricate the exact same damning lie and attribute it to their beloved prophet. (Loc. 423) Availing ourselves of these stories, called hadith, and the Quran, a book believed by every Muslim to be the verbatim word of God, we will peer into Muhammad’s mind, as we try to understand him and to figure out why he did what he did. (Loc. 425) The only problem with this emphatic premise of the author is that it is absolutely false. The vast majority of the hadiths quoted in this book are not mutawattir at all. In fact, I challenge the author to produce a list of all these so-called mutawattir hadiths that he has included in his book so that I can humiliate him by proving him wrong.

Another extreme error is his assertion that the hadiths come directly from “companions and votaries”.

This is utterly false, especially when they are not mutawattir. They come quite indirectly indeed (if at all) through a single linear chain of transmitters, about each of whom (other than the actual companions at the beginning of the hadith chain) we know next to nothing, even for so-called “sahih” hadiths. It is also a fact that literally thousands of hadiths were manufactured by political authorities and scholars during the quarter of millennium before the hadiths were finally recorded in written form. One person alone was actually sentenced to death for provably manufacturing hundreds, if not thousands of hadiths. During this time, there was a major schism between “Shiites” and “Sunnis”, which amplified the political and social incentives to manufacture even more hadiths. This is why, to this day, there is not one hadith source that is universally accepted by all groups of Muslims. The only doctrine in Islam that is accepted by all Muslims is the Quran, and nothing but the Quran.

30 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Another extreme error is asserting that multiple hadith versions tell “the exact same” story. No, they most definitely do not. They are almost invariably different, and quite often in a very material way.

Sometimes, even the addition or omission of only one word or phrase can change the meaning of a hadith to the exact opposite implication (e.g., justice vs. gross injustice). We saw an example of exactly this already with respect to two versions of the same apostasy hadith. If two versions are truly “the exact same”, by the way, the hadith compiler would normally just report the additional chain (e.g., “also reported through”) rather than a new hadith.

Therefore, even without doing any analysis of specific hadiths whatsoever, we can come to the shocking conclusion that nearly 2/3 of all Bukhari hadiths (considered the “most reliable” by Sunnis) are definitely erroneous in some respect, based on the fact that there are at least 7,275 hadiths in his collection (some say over 9,000), including multiple versions, yet only 2,602 hadiths excluding multiple versions (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari ).

Even more shocking, Bukhari discarded roughly 300,000 hadiths that he considered unreliable or fabricated, which begs the question of where all these hundreds of thousands of unreliable, trashed hadiths actually came from! Given that it is an historical fact that many chains of narration were also fabricated (especially in hadiths via Iraq, per various scholars that now know much more than Bukhari did), how do we know how much sewage seeped into the so-called “sahih” hadiths? The stark reality is that we don’t, and yet we already know with certainty that some sewage is definitely there.

But this hadith debunking doesn’t even scratch the surface on the problems with the author’s citations of “hadith” sources. Not only does he rely on extremely unreliable hadiths that are not mutawattir, but for his most outrageous claims he actually discards hadiths altogether and cites sources with no validated authenticity at all, such as Sira and Tabaqat literature. In no way possible can these sources even be classified as “hadiths” per modern Islamic scholarship, since “hadiths” require a validated isnad (chain of narration). And when even these unreliable sources are not sufficient, the author resorts to pulling stories literally out of the Internet hat, as we shall see below.

In short, the author overwhelmingly cites extremely unreliable sources when making his claims based on historical sources, yet he deliberately deceives the reader into thinking that not only are these sources hadiths, but mutawattir hadiths too. They are, in fact, neither – not by a longshot.

Muslims Are Evil Due to the “Islam” That >99.99% Have Never Even Read or Learned Perhaps what is most hilarious of all about the author’s citations of unreliable hadiths and fairy tale stories is his own admission that the vast majority of Muslims don’t even read these obscure sources, or even the Quran for that matter. They have likely never even heard or studied such historical sources in their entire lives: That is why Muslims love Islam. Very few Muslims have read the Quran to understand it. Yes they chant it and often in a language that they don’t understand, but few know what they read.

Even fewer are those who have read the Sira and the hadith. The Islam they live is the Islam made by them. They create the best religion in their mind and when you tell the truth about Islam they see no resemblance of it with the one they have envisioned.

31 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only (per http://alisina.org/blog/2012/06/12/seven-valleys-from-faith-to-enlightenment/ ) Also, note how the author defines “very few” per the quote above to mean about 1% in the next quote below: She's not reading from any version. Like 99% of Muslims she has not read the Q. I was a strong Muslim b4 reading the Q. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463005477568139264 ) But it seems the author was only generously rounding down to 99% in his quote above. What he really meant to say with more accuracy was 99.99%: Like 99.99% of Muslims you hv not read Q, hadith or sira. Don't try to teach me Islam. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463737491955007488 ) So, in short, “even fewer” than 0.01% of Muslims even read Sira and hadiths (i.e., < 1 per 10,000 Muslims). And according to the author’s own embarrassing admission, certainly far fewer than even that tiny amount have read or learned the type of Sira stories and hadiths that he would consider “evil” and incompatible with the “best religion in their mind” (i.e., with the “Islam… they have envisioned”).

Why? Because, as the author implicitly asserts, the tiny fraction of Muslims who actually know hadiths overwhelmingly tend to reject those “evil” ones as spurious.

Whoopsee. So much for the author’s claim that all Muslims who love and are devoted to Islam are evil!

In psychology, this bias in self-perception is called the Fundamental Attribution Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error ). Before the author became an apostate, the “evil of Islam” was acting upon him externally. However, for all other Muslims today who are not yet apostates, they are “savages”, “inhuman”, “infected by a virus”, etc. (see “Final Solution” section below). That kind of “evil” is literally alive and incubating inside all of those Muslims, thereby making them “evil”. But not him – he was just a victim when he was a Muslim.

In so graciously – and hypocritically – excusing his “pre-apostate” self from being evil, the author embarrassingly and unwittingly contradicts himself once again regarding his assessments of Muslims in general today. As the author so rightly points out in his own biographical apostasy article quoted above, these facts on Muslim ignorance of historical literature beg the question of how can Muslims in general be evil because of obscure, unreliable sources that they have never even heard quoted, let alone learned? I guess it must be some sort of Muslim mind-meld thing going on then. Apparently, Moozlamic super-tech. can brainwash the Moozlamic masses with “downloaded” knowledge (”evil on demand” via NetFlix perhaps?) that they have never even learned. Whoa, now that’s some slick supertech.! So where’s that Kung Fu disc? Is Neo still using it?

The obvious question, then, is, How honest and sincere could the author possibly be in trying to convince Muslims that such obscure, unreliable, and apparently “evil” historical sources should be considered (i.e., incorporated) as an inextricable part of their religious doctrine? The overwhelming majority of Muslims have already effectively rejected them in their day-to-day lives. Why would a Messiah of “truth” actively promote in Muslims what he himself considers “evil”, especially when that “evil” is a “lie” and overwhelmingly not within Muslim minds right now, per his own admission?

32 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only In effect, the author is promoting the exact same irrational, extremist views that terrorists themselves promote as “truth”. This seemingly validated “truth”, in turn, promotes an irrational, extremist “antiterrorism” terrorism against Muslims in response. In this way, the vicious cycle of terrorist hate becomes self-sustaining. I suppose we have the author and his genocidal freak show of devotees to “thank” for that.

Eurabia: The Moozlims Are Coming!!!

Another juvenile claim parroted repeatedly by the author is the Eurabia idiocy, which has been repeatedly debunked, for example here: 1) http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silencethe-eurabia-claim/ and here 2) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/eurabian_follies#sthash.AtiF3Lvg.wOscBToP.dpbs A very reputable non-Muslim author, Doug Saunders, has also overwhelmingly debunked this paranoid delusion in his book as follows: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Muslim-Tide-ImmigrantsThreaten/dp/0307951170/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395983259&sr=11&keywords=doug+saunders.

But apparently, not even the most obvious truths are enough to set this author free. The reason, of course, is obvious. The paranoid delusion of plain old racism won’t let him. Immigrants are really just sent as secret, conspiring “raiders” immigrating (i.e., “invading” per the author’s view) for the purpose of plundering and eventually taking over the West, as directed, apparently, by some nefarious Moozlamic authority hiding at Moozlamic HQ, wherever that is: The raiders are back, this time under the guise of immigrants and economical refugees. They are the Trojan horse of Islam. If we don’t eliminate this threat in time, we stand to lose everything. (Loc. 7970) There are three options before us. Option one is to do nothing. This will allow Muslims become the majority in Europe in a few short decades. Muslim immigrants on average produce four times more children than Europeans. (Loc. 7972) How ironic indeed is his perception of Muslims as “raiders” given the plundering of resources in Muslimmajority countries by the West for centuries, which continues to this day. Africa is a prime example, per this link, but there are many more: http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/03/bleeding-africa-a-half-century-of-the-francafrique/ .

The “Sodomy Fatwa” What is even more humiliating than the author’s stunning inability to distinguish between reality and hate fantasy is his extreme gullibility in believing anything and everything as long as it portrays Islam or 33 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims in a negative light. This next example is truly amazing and shows just how over the edge and loony this author has become in his crazed, irrational hatred of all the evil he projects onto Islam. Here is a quote of a “sodomy fatwa” that the author actually believes is true according to his own embarrassing admission: [O]ne jihadi asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus [for a future bomb] if the intention is good?" ‘Yes’ was the answer of the cleric, as he gave the following fatwa. In principle, sodomy is forbidden.

However, Jihad is more important. It is the pinnacle of Islam. If sodomy is the only way to reach this pinnacle of Islam, then there is no harm in it. The rule is that necessity makes the forbidden permissible. (Loc. 4764) [Per “cleric”]: No duty takes precedence over Jihad. Therefore, you must be sodomized. (Loc. 4771) I am not sure what is more humiliating to the author – swallowing this puerile absurdity with a blind devotion to hate, like cult Kool-Aid, or admitting that he already knew it was completely debunked as a hoax in mid-2012, well before his book was published in March 2013: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/benjamin-doherty/israel-intel-linked-memri-perpetuates-sodomyjihad-hoax.

Whoopsee.

Facts and Logic Are Optional: Quranic and Linguistic Analyses Are Not Even Necessary What I also found revealing about this book was how it finally helped explain to me why it has been so easy for me to crush all these Islamophobe claims in debate after debate online with the author’s cultish zombies, who drink all of this hate in deeply without realizing how ridiculous and factually unfounded the claims really are. One of the most famous of the author’s zombie followers, by the way, was the terrorist Anders Breivik, who invoked the author’s work and web site several times to support his murderous rampage.

These zombies seem almost shocked when they are so easily shot down in a debate. Time and again, they run away from me before the debate is finished, completely humiliated once they realize the socalled “facts” behind their parroting of the author’s claims either don’t exist or totally contradict the claim itself.

For example, what I found stunning and so revealing is that in the entire 420+ page book there was not even one analysis of Quranic verses by the author to determine or confirm their true meaning – not one.

It is simply unbelievable that anyone but an idiot could be persuaded without such analysis. Such willful ignorance is beyond stunning. And, yes, it is indeed willful ignorance (of “innumerable questions”), per the author’s own admission: My work is not about the sacred scriptures of Islam, but it is based directly on them….It is not necessary for me, in this book, to discuss the innumerable questions raised by the Quran and

34 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only the Hadith, their translation into other languages, or the disputes over subtle nuances in those texts. (Loc. 8254, Footnote 6) There are some claims, of course, that are not as easy to shoot down because the facts are much more involved and in contention by even Muslims themselves, who are also often guilty of superficial or pathetic analysis. To avoid getting bored with repeating easy debates that I have already won, I have proposed (via Twitter) four such contentious and interesting topics for our upcoming debate. I have listed them above at the beginning of this document.

VI.

THE AUTHOR’S FINAL SOLUTION: “ERADICATE” AND “QUARANTINE” The Dark Side of Paranoid Delusions

But there is also a very dark side to all this hysterical schizophrenia. Take a look at the author’s stated mission in order to get some better clarity on why the dark side of this schizophrenia will eventually present itself more and more as time passes: I wrote this book with two goals in mind, to help Muslims see the truth, leave Islam, leave their hatred, and join the rest of mankind as fellow humans, and to warn the world of the threat of Islam. (Loc. 7955) What is the solution? Muslims must leave Islam. They must discard their culture of hate and join the rest of mankind as fellow humans. (Loc. 199) If this first mission becomes a failure, as it has already proven to be (though the author is still in delirious denial), then how can his mind continue to channel all that extreme hatred he feels against Islam and Muslims? When he eventually realizes his dedicated lifetime mission has become an abject failure, he will still be left with an existentially threatening evil menace (as he perceives it) that keeps growing and growing out of his control. In other words, once he realizes that his pathetic “truth” will never work in “setting all these Muslims free”, what will he do instead?

Perhaps a better question to ask is what would an unemployed Messiah do instead? Instead of being a Messiah of “truth”, he would have to be a Messiah of X, where X is his new mission. I wonder what that X would be. Hmm. Well, I think a very good answer can be derived from how he currently views Islam and all practicing Muslims. For one, the author made the hate-filled claim that “Muslims are savages”, which he at first flatly denied (i.e., lied about) on Twitter and then wholeheartedly endorsed once I proved him 100% wrong. He also claims Muslims are “Nazis”, “not human” and “evil” – actually “a bottomless pit of evil” to be more precise, per his own correction. He believes that the only solution is to “eradicate Islam”.

This would apparently be done by “banning Islam” and “expelling all Muslims”, followed by strict “quarantine” measures to keep the “disease” of Islam and the “deadly virus” that Muslims are carrying isolated. Does this dehumanizing, cult supremacist mentality sound familiar to anyone else from history? Hmm, I think I’ve heard such ruthless “disease eradication” euphemisms before, but I just can’t put my finger on who advocated them.

35 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The Author’s Backup Plan X Hints of the author’s true intentions underlying backup plan X come in quotes like these (my emphases are in bold and my comments are in square brackets []): I am not against multiculturalism. I love humus, falafel and babaghanush, and did I say belly dancing? That is culture. (Loc. 7700) [Link to next quote for relevant context] It’s barbarity that clashes with civilization. Are Indian culture, Chinese culture, African culture or any culture in war with any other culture? Islam is in war with all cultures, because it is not a culture. It is the antithesis of culture. I support Geert Wilders and his effort to stop Islam in Europe. Wilders is our best hope. If people like him are silenced, the anti-Islam sentiment will turn violent. (Loc. 7704) So far violence has been one sided – perpetrated by Muslims. It’s only a matter of time for it to become reciprocal. Europe is becoming intolerant. Ironically, that is a good thing, because tolerating intolerance will only encourages [sic] it. (Loc. 7689) It would be a mistake to see this anger as anything other than a reaction to Islamic invasion, and it would be foolish to try to suppress it. (Loc. 7694) Muslim immigrants are flooding the Western countries with the intent to colonize them. (Loc. 7841) If Islam is good why practice it minimally? If it is bad why practice it at all? Poison, taken in small doses, may not kill you, but why take it? (Loc. 7532) Muslims are not the solution. They are a massive part of the problem. By identifying themselves as Muslim they give legitimacy to the Quran and to the terrorists who put that book to practice.

(Loc. 7528) The good Muslims are those who follow Muhammad to the letter. They disdain the world and seek martyrdom. We call them terrorists. (Loc. 7733) The reason most Muslims are not terrorists is because they don’t know their religion. (Loc. 6885) The so called “moderate” Muslims are playing the same game of deception. They criticize everything Islam teaches, and say this is not Islam. In my view they are more dangerous than the terrorists. Islamic reformation is a smoke screen. (Loc. 7752) Muslim immigrants in the West are brood parasites. The western civilization will become extinct unless these parasites are removed. The second and third generation Muslims in the Western countries, are more radicalized than their parents. (Loc. 7980) Lest I am misunderstood, let me clarify that I am not proposing pacifism. Turning the other cheek emboldens the bully. Muslims understand the language of strength. (Loc. 8007) Muslims interpret tolerance as weakness. Islamic violence can only be stopped with strength.

When we are attacked we must strike back. (Loc. 8013)

36 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Even Muslims, who on the surface are waging a religious war, are in reality seeking to take over the country and change its political structure. This is an invasion. The religious ingredient of this invasion is only a useful pretext. Islam is about politics and world domination….Violence is inevitable. We can’t stop it by condemning it. For every action there is a reaction. To blame the reaction as if it is something that can be prevented belies one’s ignorance of the laws that govern the society and human nature. The immediate future for Western countries is bleak. I see blood in my crystal ball. There will be uprising and more angry demonstrations. I see the seeds of a civil war slowly germinating. Nothing can stop it except stopping Islam in its track, and time is running out. (per more recent article on 4/22/2014: http://www.faithfreedom.org/londons-holy-turf-war/ ) Right. "Multiculturalism" is great as long as it is without the people part! Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” nonsense is then indirectly invoked here to foreshadow the inevitable violent conflict that will follow per the author’s own violent, prophetic visions. It is apparently not only ominous, but “inevitable”: “Islam is at war with all cultures, because it is not a culture.” It’s actually pure “poison”, and all practicing Muslims “give legitimacy to… terrorists”. The invalidation of Islam is complete, and Muslims are even disqualified from being called “human”. How could the author’s “eradication” vision not involve extreme violence against such an intractably inhuman non-culture? It is not even remotely credible, contrary to the author’s disingenuous claim of “non-violent eradication”. As for the loon Geert Wilders, it seems like the author’s “best hope” is already a washout and a bigoted reject by his own people.

So what then is Plan B? Or should we say Plan X, as in eXterminate, or Plan H, as in Holocaust? Note also how “immigration” is equated by the author to “invasion”. So if non-Muslims fight violently against such “invasion”, then logically any such fight against immigration must be considered just self-defense, even if it is violent and unconstitutional.

And who would have to be exterminated? Well, all practicing (“good”) Muslims, of course, since they are all terrorists in the author’s view. Even moderate Muslims would have to exterminated, since “they are more dangerous than the terrorists”. What possible response other than extermination do “brood parasites” deserve, especially when they supposedly get more virulent with each successive generation?

I mean, how is it even logical that the author doesn’t believe in targeting and killing anyone who is a “terrorist” or “more dangerous than the terrorists” or an “inhuman” “parasite” when he is definitely “not proposing pacifism”? So when he states, “we must strike back”, how could this not be interpreted as striking back violently?

I challenged the author multiple times to explain how this expel and quarantine plan would be carried out in a “nonviolent” fashion (yes, he actually claimed it would be “nonviolent”!). Would he simply ask all the Muslims to form a single file line and politely walk across the quarantine border? No answer from this bold, visionary author - none. After squirming some more within the irrational logical trap that he constructed for himself, and thinking that I had not yet finished his book, he finally tried to escape the grilling with a bold-faced lie that his expel and quarantine plan was described in detail in his book, so I should just keep reading to find out what it is rather than bother him on Twitter.

Nope, unbeknownst to him, I had just finished his book that day (3/23/2014), and such a plan was absolutely nowhere to be found. I challenged him on this lie to prove me wrong by quoting directly 37 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only from this plan in his book. His reply: No answer yet again. How could he answer? The plan was his own schizophrenic hallucination. It does not exist. Anyone can verify this simply by searching for the word “quarantine” in his book, which only occurs once. In this one instance, he merely sates the “deadly virus” should be quarantined, but absolutely no plan to do so is laid out.

As if that humiliation were not enough, I completely crushed his “quarantine” euphemism yet again on Twitter, this time by pointing out that a quarantine is 1) temporary, 2) localized, and 3) physically impermeable; whereas the “quarantine” he is proposing must be 1) permanent, 2) global across the entire planet, and 3) not just physically impermeable, but also impermeable to the mere idea of Islam itself. Again, what was his response to this devastating rebuttal to his “quarantine” idea? Absolute silence.

His expel and quarantine plan also includes the following: Muslims should be sent back to where they came from (https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/447911365991096320).

I then rebutted by pointing out that between 25-40% of American Muslims (depending on the survey) are converts to Islam, so “they are already home” and can’t “go back” anywhere. His reply to that crushing rebuttal? Again, no reply whatsoever. How could he reply? There is no reply possible that would not make him sound even more like a wacked-out loon.

Backup Plan X is Already 100% Clear to the Author’s Devotees AND the Author Apparently, given his clear incompetence to do so himself, he is leaving his sinister “expel” and “quarantine” plan up to others to design and implement once he convinces everyone that eradicating Islam is the only possible answer. Based on history and at least one attempt to catalyze the “expel and quarantine” plan by Anders Breivik, I think we all know with absolute clarity what the only possible plan can and must be to achieve the author’s fantasy eradication objective. But just in case you need another hint, here’s a couple of quotes from one of the “truth” Messiah’s most devoted followers. She is demonstrably challenged, both intellectually and morally, as is typical of the author’s devotees: Yes, I pledge to defend my nation & killing enemy to save my nation is my way to serve humanity. (https://twitter.com/gwen4stacy/status/451459170059821057) Genociding [sic] terrorism is about love to humanity (https://twitter.com/gwen4stacy/status/451463336643665920) The author claims that he doesn’t support this genocide/holocaust route, which is logically the only route to accomplish “eradication of Islam”. Instead, he just keeps repeating his messianic chant, “the truth will set Muslims free”. Meanwhile, his “truth” experiment has been running for over two decades now, and it is a complete and utter failure, with Islam growing faster than when he first took hold of his messianic reins to free the Muslim world. Even he admits to this undeniable reality and his undeniable failure, with Islam actually growing fastest in his own back yard where the bulk of his devotees are!:

38 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only In 2001, I predicted that Islam will be defeated in our own time. Since then Islam has advanced.

Mosques are mushrooming everywhere in the West and the population of Muslims has grown.

(Loc. 8086) Given the factual reality of Islam growing and advancing inexorably in the world, particularly in “the West”, how credible is the author’s messianic vision given its proven failure to date? While the author prattles his messianic faux optimism from his Islam-free dream world, his devotees know all too well what is the only possible solution given the ominous threat he is constantly warning them of. But is it fair to even assume that the author is in a dumbfounded stupor of paranoid schizophrenic delusion, or could the truth be much more sinister – that he already knows his messianic vision is just a propaganda lie to cover for and catalyze his real vision of “genocidal terrorism”? Clearly his devotees have already answered that question, but so has the author, in his own words: Our objective should never be to win [Muslims’] hearts. This will never happen. Our objective must be to stop their advancement and to eradicate Islam. (Loc. 8015) In addition, take note how the author is opposed to pacifism and advocates violence and “striking back” as part of his solution, yet these are obliviously absent from his innocuous two goals “to help Muslims see the truth” and “to warn the world of the threat of Islam”. It seems like there is a missing third goal here that the author really doesn’t want us to know too much about.

What is perhaps most troubling is the author’s apparent paranoid schizophrenia towards Muslims. For example, he has stated (on his website) that for those who have deep knowledge of Islam, “it is criminal to call yourself a Muslim”, while at the same time claiming that he doesn’t hate Muslims at all – just Islam. Apparently, those who know a lot about Islam and still call themselves Muslims must be evil, without any doubt, based on what they know Islam teaches. They are criminally guilty just for being a Muslim. Not only Muslims, but Islam itself should also be “criminalized” according to the author, and it can ominously be done “after many deaths”: The Quran contains 100s of evil verses and yes it's time to criminalize it. Evil must be condemned in all its forms. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463037381877055488 ) The only thing we need to do is ban Islam. It will be done after many deaths. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463609518878756864 ) And even if Muslims staunchly claim to support universal democratic values, then they must be lying, which of course is supposedly required of Muslims according to yet more Islamophobic fantasy propaganda. The author is clearly suffering from some extreme paranoid delusions about all the lying Moozlims out to get him or deceive him. It is so wacko that it is actually somewhat entertaining to behold such paranoid delusions in real life – without even having to buy a movie ticket! Popcorn anyone?

Oh, in case you still had any doubt about the author presenting extreme symptoms of schizophrenia, try reconciling his desired “eradication” of 30% of humanity above with this little gem of warm and fuzzy messianic ‘guiltless’ love for all “mankind as one family”, along with his extremely ironic personal motto of being “against hate”:

39 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only I have received countless emails from people who told me that after they left Islam, for the first time they saw mankind as one family. The distrust and the hatred had evaporated overnight.

Now they could love everyone without guilt. (Loc. 7829) We are Against Hate, Not Faith (Motto of Faith Freedom International, the author’s website) After I saw Islam is a lie I no longer divided mankind in us and them. We're people. (per Twitter, https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463083173451022336 ) Yup, this is the same guy who hates Islam and all practicing Muslims, and who vehemently opposes the Faith of Islam. This is also the same guy who emphatically and repeatedly states, "Muslims should be expelled and Islam banned". Yet he is also a lover of "everyone", all "mankind", “without guilt”. In my view, there is only one way for a twisted mind to reconcile such extremely contradictory worldviews.

The answer is in the key phrase I last quoted: “without guilt”. Only a psychopath could “love everyone without guilt” after dehumanizing – and then “eradicating” – 30% of the world population out of the “everyone” and “mankind” categories.

My $100,000 Challenge to the Author That His Prediction Will Be 100% Wrong By the way, with respect to the author’s prediction that “Islam will be defeated in our own time”, I am so confident that he is deliriously wrong that I will gladly make a bet with him. I am willing to bet him $100,000 in 2014 (U.S. CPI-adjusted) dollars that there will not just be more Muslims ten years from now in the world (or in the U.S. alone), but a higher percentage of Muslims as well. If he is willing to put his money where his hot air is, then I would be more than happy to take his money and to donate it to a good Muslim cause in his name. My challenge stands. If he is honest (though delusional), he will take it.

If he is a liar, he won’t.

VII.

THE AUTHOR’S TRANS-MILLENNIAL MEDICAL QUACKERY Who Except the Author is Embarrassing Himself With This Quackery?

But let’s circle back again to the author’s armchair medical quackery, particularly in chapters 2-6.

Perhaps there is no better way to emphasize how laughable these claims are than to point out how I have yet to see any Islamophobe invoke or pursue these arguments online against me in any debate.

And I have had a lot of these debates. By contrast, the facts that do keep coming up again and again in my debates with Islamophobes are those from chapter 1, chapter 7 (except without any absurd allusions to Jim Jones), and the other Quran and hadith citations sprinkled elsewhere in the book (which have largely been lifted from Robert Spencer’s work). In no case in my experience have I ever heard these psychobabble medical arguments being parroted to me by even the author’s most obsequious online followers. Clearly, even they are too embarrassed to invoke the author’s hysterical medical claims.

In addition, there is zero testimonial support for any of this medical quackery from any medical professional in this entire book. Not even one seems willing to step up to the plate on the author’s behalf. The best that he can accomplish are references to outdated Christian missionary biographers like William Muir, who babbled on about similar quack theories; or the odd off-the-cuff pure speculation 40 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only from someone who is familiar with epilepsy (e.g., LaPlante) but clearly not familiar with the details of the historical figures being name-dropped based on pure speculation (see Loc. 3668 and its context as one example).

The author’s analysis is an absolutely wonderful case study in confirmation bias. Don’t worry, though. I won’t be ignoring these wild claims, even though they wander quite far from any Islamic doctrine or historical facts. I will cover them too. After all, this is a lampooning exercise. Why leave out the fun part?

What is so ironic and funny is that even the author admits to the sheer idiocy of his approach and the confirmation bias that is required to carry it out. He states the following: It is not possible to make a thorough evaluation of the psychological profile of someone centuries after his death. (Loc. 412) He also states this gem: This book does not intend to psychoanalyze a man who lived 1400 years ago, but rather to unravel his mystique. (Loc. 427)

All of the Author’s “Arguments” Are Just Speculation Deep And yet, in spite of conceding these obvious points, he then proceeds to attempt what is “not possible” by “psychoanalyz[ing] a man who lived 1400 years ago” based on the most flimsy and speculative evidence imaginable! Even more ironic, he admits regarding his conclusions the following: All we can do is speculate. (Loc. 495) But, as we shall see, pure speculation somehow never gets in the way of his firm and definitive conclusions, as if his magic wand had the power to transform his wild conjectures into indisputable fact.

After all, he is the Messiah of “truth”, which he claims will set everyone free.

Just take a step back and think about how laughable the author’s approach is here. Even with modern psychiatric techniques, which require multiple clinical interviews and detailed personality tests benchmarked against control groups to diagnose disorders such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Psychopathology, etc., the reliability and consistency of such diagnoses is poor and very uncertain at best. Inter-assessor diagnostic research shows this via multiple psychiatrists diagnosing the same patient data. Even more ironic, this patient data would be quite rich and detailed in comparison to the obscure and meager quotes on historical figures unrelated to any medical examination.

Moreover, as the author himself conceded, virtually everyone exhibits some symptoms of almost all such psychological disorders, so to extrapolate a medical diagnosis from such meager evidence is patently absurd at best. If we wanted, we could diagnose almost anyone with all kinds of medical disorders based on ad hoc presentations of various medical symptoms derived from extremely sketchy and second-hand biographical information. That, of course, would be the very epitome of quack medicine and hypochondriacally-motivated layperson diagnoses. And that sort of confirmation bias is 41 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only exactly what the author indulges in throughout his book. This duck certainly loves to quack, and all of his loony devotees think it is music to their ears.

VIII.

TEMPORAL LOBE EPILEPSY (“TLE”) – A SNAPSHOT OF SHEER IDIOCY Credible Evidence of TLE Must Predate Prophetic Career – So the Author Creates It

Since I don’t have the time to address every claim in this book without writing a whole new book of equal or greater length, I would like to go a bit deeper into one example of the author’s sheer idiocy while playing his role as armchair physician. It is one of the author’s two core theses that Muhammad suffered from TLE as the explanation for how he received revelations of the Quran, which were often quite intense, both mentally and physically. In order for the TLE claim to be even remotely persuasive, the author must be able to produce evidence of at least one epileptic attack before Muhammad became a messenger of God. The purpose, of course, must be to document that the perceived “seizures” were independent of any divine revelation. So what does the author come up with to “prove” this point?

Well this, starting with a very strong claim that he is definitively correct in his diagnosis of an admittedly “rare” (Loc. 3410) medical disorder based on the evidence he is about to present: “ Theophanous, (752-817) a Byzantine historian was the first recorded scholar to claim that Muhammad suffered from epilepsy.[221] Today, we can confirm that claim” (Loc. 3158).

Next we get treated to the author’s signature paranormal (?) ability, which I call trans-millennial medical quackery and inter-temporal psychoanalysis. Behold, ladies and gentlemen, this super-genius in action.

His clinical clairvoyance not only makes the stunning trans-millennial diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy, but he also asserts that he has definitively confirmed this diagnosis too for us mere mortals to see: Muhammad’s seizures were of both kinds. Sometimes he fell and lost consciousness and at other times he did not. One hadith reports that during the construction of the Ka’ba, before he received his prophetic intimation, Muhammad fell unconscious on the ground with both his eyes towards the sky. At the time he lost his senses.[223] This is very much an epileptic seizure. (Loc. 3165).

Ah, yes, “this is very much an epileptic seizure” indeed, simply because he fell backwards, which logically means his eyes must be looking towards the sky if his eyes did not move – i.e., not because they rolled within their sockets upwards, which is a potential symptom of the grand mal (collapse and convulse type) seizure being alluded to. Note how there is also zero evidence here to support the author’s imaginary claims that Muhammad “lost his senses” or “lost consciousness” after he fell. Nope, he just fell backwards, that is all, per the author’s own facts. The author might, in theory, be able to extrapolate a claim of epilepsy as an extreme stretch diagnosis, at best, based on merely his hadith quote. However, the author is nothing but a liar, since he left out the rest of the hadith, which proves that this was not a seizure, nor a random fall at all: When the Ka`ba was built, the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and `Abbas went to bring stones (for its construction). Al `Abbas said to the Prophet, "Take off your waist sheet and put it on your neck."

42 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only (When the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬took it off) he fell on the ground with his eyes open towards the sky and said, "Give me my waist sheet." And he covered himself with it. (Bukhari 26:652) In other words, Muhammad fell backwards after his coworker told him to move his "waist sheet", where he was carrying heavy stones, to around his neck and shoulders for better leverage. He simply lost balance at the very moment the stones were released, thereby dramatically changing his center of gravity from under his feet to behind his feet. Note how he even states to his coworker, “Give me my waist sheet”, which means that the waist sheet itself holding those heavy stones slipped off his body completely. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly clear that he fell backwards not because of any ridiculous epileptic seizure, which would essentially be a random event, but at the very same time he was thrown off balance by the stones’ release. This happened not randomly at all, but at the behest of his coworker! Oh my, what an embarrassing attempt by the author to prove a point that he so desperately wants to be true, just like a fanatical, crazed zealot.

The Author Recycles His Same Manufactured Fact Next the author tries to recycle the very same incident as a separate example proving Muhammad had another seizure, this time a hallucinatory one. Here is the “proof” from our super-genius author: Talking about his youth, Muhammad said, “I found myself among the boys of Quraish, carrying stones such as boys play with. We had all uncovered ourselves, each taking his shirt [a cloth wrap] and putting it round his neck as he carried the stones. I was going to and fro in the same way, when an unseen figure slapped me painfully saying, ‘Put your shirt on’ so I took it and fastened it on me, then began to carry the stones upon my neck, wearing my shirt, alone among my fellows.”[226] (Loc. 3176) Although this excerpt is just from Sira and not hadith, this is referencing the same exact hadith story above about carrying the stones of the Kaaba along with his coworker, who is here described as an "unseen figure" that Muhammad could not turn to see because he was carrying heavy stones. Per the previous hadith, after a friendly slap, his coworker told Muhammad to move the "waist sheet" to around his neck instead (again, no doubt for better leverage). The surprise slap (likely on his back or shoulders) noted here may have contributed to him being thrown off balance, which provides yet another innocuous reason for why he fell backwards, other than the absurd extrapolation of an epileptic seizure.

Although this evidence makes it look like the author must have had his own seizure while writing his book, given that his own evidence contradicts his pet theory, the most hilarious part is how the author still tries to use this as evidence in his favor. Here the author is referencing the coworker who gave the boy Muhammad a friendly slap while he was carrying heavy stones: It seems that Muhammad’s hallucinatory companions were just as violent and abusive as he was. (Loc. 3180) Oh my, the only one desperately hallucinating here – ironically, about hallucinations – is the delusional author himself!

And here is more hyperbolic, trans-millennial psychoanalysis of this same incident from our super-genius author, who embarrassingly tries to milk this same phony fact for still more dramatic effect: 43 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Anxiety, worry, and fear also releases adrenalin. This generally results in jumpiness, a tendency to startle easily and the inability to relax. Shame and guilt often result in a feeling of ‘butterflies’ or weight in the stomach. Muhammad was an emotional wreck. (Loc. 3183) Instead of pointing out the obvious physical weight ON the boy Muhammad’s stomach from the stones before their release, the author hallucinates about a “weight IN the stomach” from some imagined mental disorder inducing an adrenalin rush, which then somehow chain reacts into an epileptic seizure, all while doing routine physical labor!

The Author Recycles His Same Manufactured Fact YET AGAIN But the laughs don’t stop there. The author is not done milking his imaginary comedy cow just yet. In a completely separate section, where he cross references against the symptoms of epilepsy, our medical detective makes this incisive doctoral-level analysis: Other symptoms include abnormal head movements and forced turning of the eyes. This kind of seizure happened to Muhammad during the construction of Ka’ba. (Loc. 3191)

The Author Lies, or He Hallucinates TLE Symptoms That Don’t Remotely Exist As anyone can read per the facts cited above, there was absolutely no “abnormal head movement”, no “forced turning of the eyes” within their sockets, and no “seizure” remotely mentioned whatsoever in this same hadith story that the author is invoking yet again like a howling idiot. He is either a bold-faced liar or he is wildly hallucinating about what he thinks is written in this hadith that simply is nowhere to be found.

Seriously, I am not making this stuff up. If I could, I might have a career as a professional comedian.

This is the kind of hysterical, hallucinatory drivel found everywhere in this book. Even though it sounds too entertaining to be true, the author actually seems to believe in his own outlandish fantasies. Even more hilarious, after indulging in all these unhinged trips down psychobabble rabbit holes, he narcissistically asserts, “You will be one of us” and “You will no longer be Muslim” after reading all this tabloid-quality drivel. Okee-dokee, Jimmy Jones, whatever you say. I can only tentatively conclude from such bombastic, self-important claims – all founded upon sheer idiocy – that this delusional author appears to have a serious case of the Messiah Complex, as I have already alluded to above. I will continue to allude to the author’s messianic vision again and again in the review below, since it is an obviously recurring obsession within the author’s reality-detached mind.

Oh, and one more quick point about the author’s epilepsy analysis. He cites medical/epilepsy sources in footnotes 227, 228, 229 and 242, but none of these links even exist. Why am I not surprised?

The TLE-Acromegaly-Impotence Connection That Logically Never Was But why should we be concerned about nonexistent links to support critical medical claims? We have “Dr.” [sic] Ali Sina instead. His intellectual reputation is well known, so he is all that we should need to 44 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only come to a firm conclusion – just not the conclusion that he would like. Here he is as he makes another bombastic medical claim while tripping over his own stack of absurd medical diagnoses: Acromegaly occurs after the age of 40 and usually kills the patient in his early 60s. It causes erectile dysfunction (impotence). On the other hand temporal lobe hyper activism increases libido. This explains Muhammad’s sexual vagaries in his old age and why in the later years of his life he had such an insatiable craving for sex, but no children. (Loc. 182) Clearly the author has had no medical training, as he also implied on Twitter, or else he would have realized that temporal lobe epilepsy is very strongly associated with decreased – not increased –libido in several research studies. These are noted in summary here (under the “Libido” section) on this extremely reputable medical site on epilepsy: http://www.efepa.org/living-with-epilepsy/men-withepilepsy/. By contrast, the author provides zero backup yet again for any of his medical claims, let alone for the speculative compatibility amongst all of his armchair physician diagnoses. You would think that he would provide such backup, since he is making a claim that is exactly opposite to established medical science. Here are the key excerpts from this reputable web site on epilepsy that debunk the author’s claim: One study found that between 50 percent and 70 percent of all MWE [“men with epilepsy”] report decreased sexual function and/or libido.

One survey showed that 57 percent of MWE recently experienced erectile failure, compared to 18 percent of men without epilepsy.

A recent study demonstrated that approximately 40 percent of MWE possess bioavailable testosterone levels below the normal control range. This is a significant finding because researchers now know that bioavailable testosterone levels, rather than total testosterone levels, affect libido.

Sexual desire requires appropriate function of specific regions of the cerebral cortex, especially frontal and temporal lobes. People with complex partial seizures seem more prone to problems with sexual desire, particularly when seizures originate in the temporal lobe. Moreover, research suggests that damage to the temporal lobe, common in people with partial epilepsy, affects the ability to recognize subtle cues that are integral to establishing intimacy.

Note in particular how TLE is specifically mentioned in the last excerpt as being a common physiological cause of decreased sexual desire, never increased sexual desire.

The physiological cause of lower libido in men is most proximally linked to lower levels of bioavailable testosterone, and this is the same and only physiological reason why both TLE and acromegaly can potentially cause lower libido levels. Likewise, higher libido levels (such as in one who is “craving for sex”, per the author’s accusation) would be caused by higher levels of bioavailable testosterone. So even if the author were correct about TLE generally causing higher libido, which he clearly is not, then this would imply higher bioavailable testosterone levels, which would eliminate the cause of impotence from acromegaly. In short, his two medical diagnoses are utterly incompatible!

So, in effect, the author’s delusion of a sex-crazed man who is at the same time impotent because of acromegaly is a scientific and logical absurdity. But hey, we can at least thank him for all this hate45 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only crazed entertainment. It’s not every day that you get to see a Messiah of “truth” running around intellectually buck naked.

Even common sense and common knowledge tell us that impotence is highly correlated with significantly lower libido and never higher libido. And for those who doubt, here is a link to back up that research too, among many other links per a simple Google search: http://www.webmd.com/men/howlow-testosterone-can-affect-your-sex-drive. The key statistic is that roughly 1 in 3 men who report erectile dysfunction (“ED”) to their doctor also have low testosterone, and hence low libido, levels.

Those who have ED have even further reduced libido levels due to psychological factors such as depression and performance anxiety.

The author’s fantasy of a sex-crazed impotent Arab is far beyond the credibility of even such stereotypes as The Arabian Nights. However, for the Messiah of “truth”, it seems that such standards of “truth” are par for his course. Apparently, the notion of common sense seems completely beyond the grasp of the author, like all fanatical zealots who are hell-bent on embarrassing themselves with wild and exotic hate fantasies – especially, it seems, when sex is involved. I suppose he just can’t help himself when he’s projecting his inner child and prurient adolescence. That would explain why he sounds about as mature in his assertions as a teenage boy who has discovered his first porn magazine.

IX.

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER (“NPD”) – MORE SHEER IDIOCY The Two Theses of the Author’s Book (per the Author)

Note the author’s stated theses of his book as I leave the discussion on temporal lobe epilepsy and begin the discussion on Narcissistic Personality Disorder: This book presents two theses. The first is that Muhammad suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. The second is that he was affected by temporal lobe epilepsy. He had other mental disorders as well, but these two morbidities explain the phenomenon of Islam.

(Loc. 445)

The Author Can Accomplish the Medically Impossible (per the Author) Well I think we have seen how shabby the facts and logic are in support of the TLE claim, so let’s dive a bit into his NPD thesis. How about starting with the virtual impossibility of making such a diagnosis via trans-millennial psychoanalysis, per the author’s own words: To some extent, everyone is a narcissist. A healthy dose of narcissism allows us to build selfesteem and have a positive outlook on life. That is why it is difficult to detect it when it becomes a disorder. (Loc. 1756) Faulty parenting is the major contributing cause of narcissistic personality disorder. Permissive parents who give excessive praise, overindulge, spoil, fail to impose adequate discipline, and idealize the child are just as abusive to the child’s character formation as those who beat them, ignore them or molest them. As a result, the child feels unprepared for adulthood. He grows up 46 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only with an unrealistic view of life. Conversely, a child who does not receive enough support and encouragement may also develop a narcissistic personality. (Loc. 2080) So, in other words, just about everyone in the world shows symptoms of NPD, which makes professional evaluation and testing critical to any remotely reliable diagnosis. Moreover, it appears that both too much parental attention and too little parental attention can cause NPD. Well, since no child is Goldilocks getting the perfectly “just right” amount of attention, that covers basically 100% of the world population too! Therefore, to put it even more succinctly, 100% of the population is subject to the “major contributing cause” of NPD, and 100% of the population shows at least some signs of NPD. Although that sounds like a daunting diagnostic hurdle to get over, there is no need to panic. We have the “truth” detective on our side. He can make this very difficult psychiatric medical diagnosis all by himself even though he is not a psychiatrist, nor even just a medical doctor or psychologist. And he is so good at it that he can do it across 1.4 millennia with zero professional evaluation of an individual and without breaking a sweat. Well, maybe just a little sweat. As our trusted “Doctor” must know, “why it is [so] difficult to detect it [NPD] when it becomes a disorder” is the same exact reason why it is so easy to label persons with NPD when they don’t have NPD at all. But that’s a minor concern, really – let’s just skip along and take a look at the author’s hardcore data analysis.

The Author’s “Islam” Bogeyman is Actually the “NPD” of “Muhammadism” To the author, the bogeyman of his “Islam” that he is warning the world against is equivalent to the bogeyman of his “narcissist Muhammad”. All Muslims are supposed to worship Muhammad in their servile devotion to everything that hadiths (written a quarter millennium later) attributed to him, even unrelated to his message of the Quran. How ironic that both of us agree what a revolting religion it would be to worship a man instead of God, and to elevate a mere messenger to be equivalent to his message from God, the Quran. The Quran warns against such idolatry, even against the idolatry of Muhammad himself and of the scholars that Muslims invoke as partners to God’s law. Yet Muslims somehow think they are completely immune to this sin of shirk, which is the only sin that is not forgivable. Unfortunately, they could not be more wrong.

The only reason that I have given this book a two star rating instead of the lowest one star is to bring to to Muslims’ attention the one redeeming quality of this book, which is to emphasize the shocking truth that many Muslims have also become guilty of this very same shirk that the Quran warns against. This is clear based on not just the actions of Muslims today and the predictable anthropomorphic anti-Islam obsession of ex-Muslims, but per very clearly fabricated (yet still venerated) hadiths from long ago, as I have emphasized in my past debates. The huge difference between my view and the author’s view, however, is that he is under the sincere delusion that this is what the message of God actually teaches.

As we shall eventually discover in our upcoming debates and in part below, the author could not be more wrong.

Here are just a sampling of the author’s quotes on the idolatrous servility to Muhammad that directly conflict with the message of the Quran: For Muslims, all actions of Muhammad constitute law. He cannot be held accountable. (Loc. 4738) 47 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims will commit the most hideous deeds with a clear conscience, as long as it is Sunnah. If Muhammad did it, it must be right. (Loc. 4748) Wrong - the only law of God is per the Quran, and even Muhammad was fully accountable to it. Also, there is only one sunnah explicitly recognized in the Quran for Muslims to follow, and that is the “sunnah of God” (e.g., see Quran 33:62, 40:85, 48:23, and 35:43). Now why would that be if "sunnah of man X" were part of God's law? Nowhere in the Quran does it ever command Muslims to follow the “sunnah of Muhammad” the man, or even the “sunnah of Muhammad” the prophet. It only says to obey “God AND his messenger”, which can only imply the messenger’s message from God, the Quran.

That said, what is often attributed to Muhammad per hadiths is almost never what the author claims such hadiths say – even if it is assumed such hadiths are true, when clearly many are not. By contrast, take a look at this succinct encapsulation of the author’s perspective on what Islam is.

To understand them [Muslims], one must understand their prophet. Muslims worship and emulate Muhammad. Islam is Muhammadism. Only by understanding him can one understand them. Understanding Muhammad is a psychobiography. It goes beyond the stories. It seeks to unveil the mystery of the man worshipped by 1.5 billion people. (Loc. 150).

Note how the entire explicitly stated purpose of the author’s book is to explain why 1.5 billion people (i.e., all Muslims in the author’s view) worship Muhammad. This is probably the best summary of the author’s delusional state of mind about what Islam actually represents and teaches. All of his hate is directed towards a religion that doesn’t actually exist per the Quran. It’s a hallucination in his own head.

However, to be fair, it is to some extent a hallucination in many Muslims’ heads as well (though to a lesser degree), who are following in many of the same footsteps as Christians. Christians gradually transformed their religion into an anthropomorphic focus on the messenger (Jesus), while ignoring the core message of all prophets and messengers to worship God alone, with no partners or associates whatsoever. Many Muslims, in their direct or implied glorification of Muhammad, are unfortunately doing the same. There is a very good reason why Muslims often repeat the word “Subhanallah” – not because it sounds nice, but because it means something very important: “Glory be to God”. There are no partners of God, even in glorification, let alone explicit worship. By contrast once again, here is what happens to one’s perspective when you drill down on the idolatrous ideology of “Islam is Muhammadism”: Muslims try to be like Muhammad in every way. The mullahs, study for years to learn their Prophet’s sunnah, and then teach that to believers, who in turn, do their best to emulate him.

Through the sunnah, Muslims learn how Muhammad prayed, washed his face, cleaned his teeth, nose, and ears. How he ate, which fingers he licked after eating, which foods he liked, on which side he slept, what was the shape and material of his clothing, and how long was his beard? Did he wash before sex or after? With which foot he entered the toilet? Did he urinate standing or squatting? Which direction he faced when defecating? On which foot did he place his weight when squatting? With which hand did he clean his private parts? To a Muslim, doing these is piety. The Quran says “Verily, you have in the Prophet of Allah an excellent example.” (Q. 33:21) (Loc. 7715) Here is yet more evidence of the author’s childhood brainwashing. There is only the sunnah of God (the Quran) that must be followed, per the Quran itself. Absolutely nowhere in the Quran does it command 48 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only to follow the “sunnah of Muhammad”, or even refer to this phrase. As for Quran 33:21, the ridiculous interpretation that this verse calls for Muslims to follow the “sunnah of Muhammad” as an Islamic injunction has been completely debunked elsewhere in this review. Muslims have severely strayed in idolizing a messenger of God instead of following the message itself, which unequivocally warned against repeating the same critical mistake of others in history. Instead of God consciousness, which is the objective of all worship per the Quran, such idolatry results in a sycophantic focus on a man instead of on God, as exemplified in the author’s own idolatrous perspective on Islam: Muslims’ thoughts reflect those of Muhammad and their actions mirror his. They strive to lose their selfhood and become clones of their prophet. (Loc. 7725) Yes, indeed, many individuals calling themselves “Muslim” obsess over such punctilious mimicry, thereby diverting them from the consciousness of God. And, in my view, this behavior is idolatry – or at least an imitation of it, sliding quickly towards it.

Blasphemy Laws Come from Islam and Were Motivated by NPD? The author once again tries to support his NPD accusation against Muhammad, this time by arguing that Islam severely punishes blasphemy. The author argues or implies that this supposed punishment was introduced as a result of Muhammad’s ego being inflated by NPD, and thus he was deeply offended by blasphemy. The only problem is that the author has no facts to back up this wild claim. He just invokes more vacuous claims and more guilt by association fallacies based on contemporary “Muslim” behaviors 1.4 millennia later: It’s this love [for Muhammad] that makes Muslims murder anyone who criticizes Muhammad and Islam. (Loc. 5671) The blasphemy law is savagery. The silent majority are just as guilty for their silence as those who commit those crimes. Where is their outcry? (Loc. 7134) In contrast to the author’s fact-free claims on Islam, the Quran repeatedly addresses blasphemy, and in every case the message is the same. There is no worldly penalty whatsoever for it, and Muslims are simply told to “turn away from” or leave the company of those who blaspheme. That is all. Here are just some of the quotes from the Quran to prove this point unequivocally, contrary to the author’s paranoid and delusional claims to the contrary: Had He willed, they [the idolaters] would not have been idolaters. We have not appointed you [Muhammad] as their warden, nor are you their pleader. Revile not those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. (Quran, 6:107-108) The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in His names: for what they do, they will soon be requited. (Quran, 7:180)

49 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when you hear the message of God derided or ridiculed, you are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if you do, ye would be like them. For God will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith in Hell. (Quran 4:140) O you who believe, take not as protective allies those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor (among) the disbelievers. And be conscious of God if you are believers. And when you make a call to prayer, they take it in ridicule and amusement. That is because they are a people who do not understand. Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in God and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?" (Quran 5:57-59) When you witness men engaged in offensive discourse about Our message, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes you forget, then after recollection, sit not in the company of those who do wrong. As for those who are conscious of God, they are not accountable for them [those who commit blasphemy] at all, except to give advice, that they may become conscious of God. Leave those alone who have made a sport and frolic of their religion, and have been seduced by the life of this world. But remind them with (the Quran), lest a man be doomed for what he has earned. (Quran, 6:68-70) In other words, it is abundantly clear that Muslims should simply turn away from those who blaspheme.

The most that Muslims should do in response is to advise, remind (with the Quran), and question the rationale behind that blasphemy, which is wise advice indeed. In fact, the Quran urges Muslims not to be confrontational in response to blasphemers and idolaters by reviling what is sacred to them (per verses 6:107-108 above), since such antagonism could lead to even more blasphemy against God in return.

The Quran also makes it clear that capital punishment only applies to capital crimes after due process of justice. Clearly, blasphemy is not a capital crime. There is absolutely no punishment in this world for any free speech, let alone a capital one! The Quran makes it abundantly clear that any punishment for blasphemy (and the rejection of God underlying it) will only come in the hereafter from God. Also note how there is not even a mention of blaspheming against Muhammad’s name, which would have to be there based on the author’s NPD accusation. It is not there, of course, because Muhammad was “only a man like you” (see below). Blasphemy only applies against God and God’s message. If it is purely against Muhammad or any other messenger, it is just an insult into the wind that none of those messengers can even hear, and no one with objective knowledge would even take seriously.

That said, the author does make a valid point that any such capital punishment would in fact be “murder”, most especially according to Islam. Even the author himself has every right to his free speech, no matter how vile it may be according to many Muslims. I wholly and unconditionally rebuke anyone, Muslim or otherwise, who argues to the contrary.

With respect to the most recent quote above from the author (regarding “blasphemy laws”), I essentially agree with the first sentence about those laws being morally corrupt. For the next two sentences, I agree that citizens of those countries who don't voice opposition to blasphemy laws are at least guilty in part. Those laws are wrong, in opposition to Islam, and should be repealed. The major 50 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only hurdle to doing so is that politicians would score very few political points in repealing those blasphemy laws, yet they disproportionately score many political points from vocal minorities in continuing their support of such laws. By the way, the same such dynamic exists in Christian-majority countries, where many blasphemy laws are still on the books. This is by no means just a “Muslim problem”.

My only potential objection to absolute free speech is that it must not prevent other free speech, where possible, and it must allow others to be “free from” that speech in private spaces, such as in one’s home, church, etc., so that one can actually have an opportunity to “turn away” as the Quran advises.

Laws restricting such disruptive “absolute free speech” are already on the books in every democratic country in the world. For example, no one in the U.S. can stand outside someone else’s home at 3 a.m. exercising their “free speech” with a bull horn. Clearly, though, any speech on the public Internet and in all published works can be avoided by anyone if they desire, so I see no reason per the Quran for any free speech restrictions on the Internet or in any publications.

The Author Erroneously Conflates Sycophantic Adulation in Hadiths with NPD As abundantly demonstrated above, it is the extreme gullibility of the author motivated by hate that leads him to have blind, willful trust as well in the reliability of hadiths written down about a quarter of a millennium after they were supposedly spoken. These hadiths were transmitted through a single linear chain of oral narration, where we know next to nothing about most of the hadith transmitters, even for so-called “sahih” hadiths. I find it truly amazing how much accuracy and doctrinal weight he blindly attributes to these hadiths, as if they represent the words of the Quran (God), which were transmitted not only in writing from the very beginning, but in a massively parallel and redundant manner across a vast community of Muslims.

However, I don’t blame the author entirely for his deficiency. I also blame the Muslim community for brainwashing him with all this traditional hadith veneration in his childhood, which continues to this day in most Muslim communities. Hadiths are just valuable historical documents to aid in understanding, in the same way that knowing Arabic grammar, diction and etymology aids understanding. They cannot change, abrogate or create anew any law of God (Sharia = “decree” of God). The law of God can only come from God directly via the message (Quran) communicated via God’s messengers. We will most likely take this point up in debate, but I will touch upon it now, since it is so critical in defining what Islam is and is not, per the Quran itself.

Why do I emphasize this key problem with hadiths and “Muslim tradition” here again? Because the author’s NPD claim derived from hadiths is invariably based on the idolatrous glorification of Muhammad by Muslims rather than any command or suggestion from Muhammad to do so. In short, the author erroneously conflates sycophantic adulation of Muhammad in hadiths by “Muslims” with the alleged NPD of Muhammad. Clearly, a Vulcan mind meld between Muhammad and his later followers (the bulk of whom he never even met in the chain of hadith narration) can be ruled out. Therefore, the “Muhammaddunnit” NPD argument doesn’t fly with respect to all this sycophantic adulation.

Here is a classic example of an obviously fabricated hadith that elevates Muhammad to semi-divine idolatrous status by alleging that angels removed his ability to sin from his heart, which the author unflinchingly quotes as if Muhammad must have said it himself: 51 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Two men in white clothes came to me with a golden basin full of snow. They took me and split open my body, then they took my heart and split it open and took out from it a black clot which they flung away. Then they washed my heart and my body with that snow until they made them pure. (Loc. 525, also invoked by the author in another quote in Loc. 4069) This hadith flagrantly contradicts the clear words of the Quran, where on more than one occasion Muhammad was chastised by God for doing something wrong and even sinful (e.g., 80:1-11, 33:37, 48:2, 66:1, etc.). Therefore, he was most definitely not a “perfect man” as some claim. Only his message can be considered as such, not the man himself. Such false claims of glorified perfection in a human being are a form of idolatry in my view, especially when the Quran is very clear about how perfectly human (i.e., imperfect) Muhammad was: Say, [Muhammad] “I AM ONLY A MAN LIKE YOU, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone [i.e., not even Muhammad].” (Quran 18:110) It is not (permitted) for any human being unto whom God has given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards say unto mankind, “Worship me beside God”; but rather (he should) say, “Be scholars of your Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof.” And he will not command you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve [bil-kuf'ri] after you have become Muslims? (Quran 3:79-80) How much clearer could the Quran possibly be about the humble human identity of Muhammad as “only a man like you”, as opposed to the incomparable, divine role of God? To worship or glorify any prophet of god as a “lord” or intermediary of any sort is nothing less than unequivocal kufr and disqualifies any such person from being a Muslim - provided that reflects the sincere idolatrous devotion within their hearts, which only God can see.

Note also how Quran 3:79-80 commands Muslims (with respect to what they should devoutly follow and worship) to study and teach only the Scripture of God (i.e., the Quran) – not words of mere men, even when those men are prophets of God. The naked absurdity and willful ignorance of the author in so publicly asserting that Muslims are commanded to worship (!) Muhammad could not be more embarrassingly wrong if he tried.

By stark contrast, here are some more examples of obviously fabricated hadiths and Sira that the author clearly believes in, even though they flagrantly violate both the letter and spirit of the Quran at its very core (Note that the last quote is not from any hadith or Sira at all that I recognize, or even from a reliable source, but I still included it to illustrate the author’s extreme gullibility in what he attributes to “Islam”): Orwa, the negotiator of the Quraish who visited him [Muhammad] among his men in Hudaibiyyah, witnessed that his followers “rushed to save the water in which he had performed his ablutions, to catch up his spittle, or seize a hair of his if it chanced to fall.”[193] (Loc. 2861) 'Oh Lord, I was with Kisra [the ruler of Persia] and with Kaisar [the ruler of Byzantium] and I saw no instance in which the leader was glorified like the Companions of the Prophet glorified Muhammad. The second Muhammad spat, one of them would immediately hasten [to grab his 52 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only saliva] and smear it upon his face.' Hence, the ulema, including Ibn Hajar Al-Askalani, Al-Baihaqi, Al-Daraqutni and Al-Haythami, determined that the Prophet's entire body was pure.’[181] (Loc. 2801) [T]he companions of the Prophet Muhammad would bless themselves by drinking his urine, and described an incident of urine-drinking from a hadith: "Umm Ayman drank the urine of the Prophet, and the prophet told her: 'This stomach will not be dragged through the fire of Hell, because it contains something of our Lord the Messenger of Allâh...' [178] (Loc. 2790) The unequivocal idolatry of companions rushing “to catch up his spittle” in these phony stories, as if a man’s spit, urine and other bodily waste had some sort of divine power, is absolutely revolting to everything that Islam represents. To believe that these glorification and demi-god fairy tales are true requires a truly warped and childish mind in light of the unyielding and completely uncompromising monotheistic message of the Quran.

Translated Hadiths Are Even Worse: Killing of Innocents is “Allowed”?

Here is yet another example from the author using completely unreliable hadiths, this time to do nothing less than justify terrorism against innocents! I have never once heard this hadith quoted by Muslims that I have conversed with, but I have long ago lost count of how often I have heard it from fanatic Islamophobes like the author. It illustrates the extreme danger and repugnance of relying on hadiths as a source of God’s law, which can only come from the Quran. But it also highlights the point that translations of hadiths can be far more dangerous than the original: The truth is Muhammad allowed killing children during night raids. “It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allâh (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.”[64] A number of sources considered authoritative by virtually all Muslims attest that in order to win, the Prophet took advantage of the element of surprise. (Loc. 1157) To first address the “taking advantage of the element of surprise”, this is nothing more than rudimentary military strategy practiced by all countries with a military and condemned by none of them.

Therefore, it fully complies with the Just War Doctrine. To criticize such a common tactic is just plain silly.

Killing of innocents, however, is quite another matter, and this is absolutely never allowed in Islam. To assert that it is “allowed” is utter nonsense. Nevertheless, the citing of hadith to support this atrocious position offers yet another wonderful opportunity to expose the folly of relying on hadiths, which are extremely fallible, and even more so when a translated version of the hadiths is relied upon. For example, the word “killed” does not even exist in the Arabic wording of the hadith. The word actually used is “injured”. Also, one hadith version completely contradicts the other version covering exactly the same incident, and both are laughably considered “sahih” (“correct/authentic”) by the same hadith compiler (Muslim)! Here is that version, which the author actually referenced in footnote 64. Not surprisingly, he conveniently did not quote it:

53 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet asked: “What about the children of polytheists [that may be] injured by the cavalry during the night raid?” He [Sa'b b. Jaththama] said: “They are from them.” (Muslim 19:4323): In this version, notice that it is Muhammad asking about the women and children, and someone else is answering. This is the part that completely contradicts the other hadith. With Muhammad being the one showing concern, by being the one asking instead of the one answering, this simple change completely nullifies any implication of Muhammad “allowing” harm to innocents per the author’s assertion above. In fact, the implication is now exactly opposite to his assertion.

Most important, as emphasized above, the actual Arabic word used here means "injured" or "wounded", not killed. This makes sense, since women and children might be injured by the "cavalry" (i.e., horses charging in at night in low visibility). Note that the translation is incorrect on common hadith sites, which use the word "killed" even in this hadith version.

There is also zero historical context to this hadith, zero information on what was said after, zero information on whether any innocents were ever even killed or injured, and it provides zero support for deliberately killing or injuring innocents. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite, even if it were Muhammad answering the question instead of asking it. In other words, such innocents may be unfortunate (but unavoidable) victims of injury due to poor visibility at night during battle. However, even this negative interpretation is still clearly in accordance with the Just War Doctrine that killing or injuring innocents should be avoided as much as humanly possible.

Context-Free Hadiths Are Perhaps the Worst: “Terror”(ism) Commanded?

Let’s look at another hadith that the author and so many Islamophobles love to quote related to the implied killing of innocents. In addition to its purported relevance to the author’s NPD claim, the more generic Islamophobe claim here is based on a wild extrapolation of a hadith that mentions the propaganda-loaded word “terror”, which, in turn, has no apparent historical context.

It is this common lack of (or falsifying of) an historical context in hadiths that allows fanatics and Islamophobes alike to seize such hadiths as a generic interpretative license (per their already twisted interpretation) in any future context. It also allows them to impose whatever historically blind contextual definition they want on words that have very modern connotations, especially in a translated language like English.

I am speaking, of course, about the word “terror”, which has a very specific modern connotation that didn’t even exist 100 years ago, let alone 1.4 millennia ago. It is at least clear what scary buzzword was searched for by Islamophobes to find this hadith, since I have never heard one Muslim invoke or even quote this obscure hadith either in my entire life.

Let’s take a look at this hadith, as referenced in excerpt form by the author, along with the historical context per the Quran that the author was so generous and kind to include with it: To them, the Quranic injunction of “casting terror in the heart of the unbelievers”[88] is a sure way to victory. It worked for Muhammad. He bragged, “I have been made victorious with terror.”[89] (Loc. 1391) 54 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only “I [Muhammad] have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror.”[374] (Loc. 5718) There is, of course, no “Quranic injunction of ‘casting terror in the heart of the unbelievers’”. Quran 3:151 that the author references in footnote 88 is referring only to what God did to a much larger force of enemy combatants during the Battle of Badr (i.e., not upon innocents) to save the Muslims from a crushing defeat (also see verses 3:152, 3:123 and others for proof of this meaning). There is absolutely no implication here of any command or advocacy by Muslims, or by any human being for that matter, to “cast terror into the heart” of anyone else. Yet the author blatantly lies in this quote by claiming it is a “Quranic injunction” upon Muslims.

Not surprisingly, the author again lies in footnote 88 (Loc. 8452) by not capitalizing “We” (for God), thereby implying that “we” is referring to Muslims behind this action of “terror” rather than God. This just goes to show how closely “terror” and lies tend to go hand in hand, like peas in a pod. Once again, the author is the proven liar here planting that evil seed.

Although this is now a minor point in comparison to such egregious lies, it is not even humanly possible to literally “cast terror” into someone else’s heart. Humans can cause terror. They can’t just cast it telepathically.

Now let’s look at the hadith in question after having debunked its phony and grossly contrived interpretation via the propaganda-loaded English word “terror”. Take a look at the full English translation circulating on the Internet, including the full context of the supposed “victorious with terror” phrase: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). (Bukhari 52:220) Notice how even this translation harkens back directly to the intense fear cast into the hearts of the enemy combatants during the Battle of Badr by God, not by Muhammad or any Muslims. The Quran is extremely clear on this point. The hadith is also using the past tense, not the future tense as some Islamophobes like to imply in order to twist it into a command for later Muslims. It is clearly referring to a past incident, and every knowledgeable Muslim knows that this can only be invoking the famous Battle of Badr. Badr was the critical turning point in allowing the emigrant Muslim community in Medina to survive an early existential threat from the attacking Meccans. Ironically, if there were any “terrorism” involved in this battle, it was not by the Muslims, but against the Muslims.

In essence, what the author and other Islamophobes have engaged in here is a factual lie connected to a propaganda conclusion via a classic etymological fallacy. For an explanation of this logical fallacy, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy. Let’s lay it out in a step-by-step causal chain to see it all more clearly: 1. Muslims are being attacked near Medina as the victims by the enemy aggressors from Mecca.

2. Muslims alone could not cause the intense fear, since the enemy far outnumbered the Muslims.

55 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

God casts intense fear into the hearts of enemy combatants at the Battle of Badr per the Quran.

Author misrepresents God as “we (Muslims)” casting “terror” into generic non-Muslims.

Author misrepresents past tense on this specific incident as a command to all future Muslims.

An etymological fallacy is invoked to make intense fear = “terror” (per modern definition).

An etymological fallacy is invoked again to make “terror” = “terrorism” (purely a modern word).

Author thus concludes that ALL Muslims are commanded to be made victorious with terrorism.

That, in a nutshell, is how the irrational mind of a terrorist works. And, as we just confirmed, the author is quite adept at thinking exactly like one. In fact, he proudly touts his terrorism credentials and terrorist training expertise right on Twitter (after I expanded his Twitter abbreviations for readability): You either believe in the Quran or not. If you do, I can convert you into a jihadi in a few hours. (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463417379397976064 )

The Author’s Deliriously Unhinged NPD Claims Based on the Quran Now let’s turn to the support (or rather lack thereof) for the author’s NPD accusation per the Quran.

Since the Quran does not remotely support this accusation, we get to witness here how extremely deluded a human being can truly become if he is motivated enough towards a predetermined brainwashed conclusion that he just can’t seem to let go of.

For example, given how convinced the author is that Muslims are told to worship Muhammad, take a look at this example of how he grossly misinterprets a verse from the Quran to fit his views, which he does again and again with Quran verses: Blessed is He who holds the reins of Kingship. (Q. 67:1) (Loc. 1829) According to the author’s narcissistic interpretation, the implied “He” and “King” is Muhammad.

However, it couldn’t be more obvious that this verse is referring to God. A better and very literal translation is as follows, along with the full context, including verse 67:2 (Note that there is no word in the original Arabic for “reins”, which was interpolated on translation): “Blessed is He in whose hand is the Dominion, and He is over everything All-Powerful – the One Who created death and life, that He may test you, which of you is best in deed. And He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving.”. (Quran 67:1-2) What kind of drugs does someone have to be on to think that this could be describing Muhammad instead of God? Similar logic applies to the other hysterical attributions of narcissism to Muhammad.

Here is another: You [Muhammad] are a lamp with spreading light. (Q.33:46) (Loc. 1817) Again, let’s first get the full context and proper translation, starting with 33:45: O Prophet, We have sent you (as) a witness and a bearer of glad tidings and (as) a warner, and as one who invites to God by His permission and (with) a lamp illuminating. (Quran 33:45-46)

56 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Note how the author flagrantly lies with his translation just to further his “narcissism” hate narrative.

Nowhere does it say “You are a lamp”. Moreover, the “lamp illuminating” is not literally Muhammad, but the message of the Quran that the Messenger is holding as a guiding light, which actually includes all the messages noted at the beginning of this verse. Also note how it emphasizes that what Muhammad does is only by God’s permission (worded as “by Our command” below). What kind of humble “narcissist” needs permission? Finally, if the author were remotely familiar with how the Quran often refers to the Quran itself – or rather not lying to make a delusional claim– it would have been exceedingly obvious to him what the guiding “lamp” truly is. Here are two verses to prove this point: And among men is he who disputes in respect of God though having no knowledge nor guidance, nor a book giving light. (Quran 31:20) And thus did We reveal to you an inspired Book by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor (what) the faith (was), but We made it a light, guiding thereby whom We please of Our servants; and most surely you [Muhammad] show the way to the right path [i.e., via the Quran’s guiding light]. (Quran 42:52) And here is the author once again deliberately mistranslating so that the reader confuses the Quran with Muhammad just to fit his narcissism hate narrative: Verily this is the Word (brought by) a most honorable Messenger imbued with power, the Lord of the Throne, Mighty, One to be obeyed. (Q. 81:19) [sic] (Loc. 1833) The “word”, which is the Quran, is what is powerful, not Muhammad; and it is this message that should be obeyed, not Muhammad as man. Notice how the author also portrays Muhammad as “the Lord of the Throne, Mighty”, when of course this could only be God. Here is a proper translation of this verse, which makes the author’s errors crystal clear: Indeed, it is surely a Word of a noble messenger, possessor of power, with the Owner of the throne, secure. (Quran 81:19-20) And yet again, here is the author beating the same narcissism drums with more deliberate mistranslations to present Muhammad as exalted and glorified. And yet again, this translation comes neither from Yusuf Ali nor Shakir, as the author promised it would (per Loc. 8250, footnote 6). In other words, he is lying, and lying and lying again: Allah gives his Messenger Lordship and Power over whomever He wills (Q. 59:6) (Loc. 1827) And below is the proper and full translation of this verse, where it is clear there is no “Lordship” word at all, and all power comes only from God, not from Muhammad. Also, the power given was not permanent as the author implies, but merely with respect to specific incidents such as the one noted in this verse and its context. Finally, this verse is actually completely generic in applying to all messengers (plural per original Arabic), not just to Muhammad, contrary to the author’s mistranslation once again, where he noted it as singular: What God has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from them - for this you made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry: but God gives power to His messengers over any He pleases: and God has power over all things. (Quran 59:6)

57 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only In this very same section, the author yet again deliberately mistranslates another verse to dishonestly distort the message of the Quran as a glorification of Muhammad and Muhammad’s every whim: You [Muhammad] may have whomever you desire; there is no blame. (Q. 33:51) (Loc. 1826) And below is the corrected translation, where the exalted power given to Muhammad by the author simply evaporates once again, this time quite dramatically. In fact, what this verse is emphasizing is exactly the opposite of power. It emphasizes Muhammad’s obligation to keep all of his wives happy by giving each of them a fair share of his time. The only “power” allowed is one of common sense flexibility, which is permitting the deferral of turns until another time. To “postpone” or “defer” does not imply to cancel, but just to move a turn to another time while still being fair to each of them.

You (Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside (her turn temporarily), it is no sin on you (to receive her again), that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may all be pleased with what you give them. God knows what is in your hearts. And God is Ever All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. (Quran 33:51) OK, let’s keep going, even though the author’s idiocy is mind-numbing and his deceptions and lies are now stacked to the ceiling. Here is another example of the author claiming the Quran glorifies Muhammad for the sake of his alleged narcissism: He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell. (Q. 4:114) [sic: Quran 4:115] (Loc. 1823) The Arabic word does not mean “disobeys”, but rather opposing with hostility (though not necessarily with implied violence). Moreover, per this verse, there is zero consequence in this world for any nonviolent hostility, but rather only in the hereafter, which means that it could not have constituted any threat from Muhammad himself to someone who rejected his warnings regarding the hereafter. It is merely a moral wrong, not a legal wrong. Here is a better, and more complete, translation: And whoever acts hostilely to the Messenger after that guidance has become manifest to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We will turn him to that to which he has (himself) turned and make him enter hell; and it is an evil destination. (Quran 4:115) Therefore, in spite of how serious the punishment might be in the hereafter, Muhammad would still have to tolerate any such nonviolent hostility in this world. The punishment belongs to God alone.

More Deliriously Unhinged NPD Claims Based on the Quran And here is yet another example of the author’s delusional interpretations, which I will break down and deal with one by one per each verse (claim) noted in this quote: He [Muhammad] referred to himself [as] Khayru-l-Khalq (the Best of Creation), an “excellent example” (Q.33:21), “exalted above other prophets in degrees” (Q.2:253), “the preferred one” (Q.17:55), and a “Mercy to the worlds” (Q.21:107)…He claimed to have been risen “to a praised estate” (Q.17:79) the station of Intercessor, advising God whom to punish and whom to forgive.

(Loc. 1793) 58 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only At this point, one should be wondering what book the author is reading, because it is certainly not the Quran. The claims only seem to get wackier at this point. First, Muhammad describing himself as “the Best of Creation” has no reference attached to it whatsoever, which makes it easy to reject that claim as completely unfounded. I challenge the author to produce his evidence on this claim.

Next, let’s deal with verse 33:21, which the author repeatedly quotes as his primary fact backing up the claim that Muslims are supposed to follow obsequiously whatever the man Muhammad said and did per hadiths – many undoubtedly fabricated – that finally got recorded a quarter millennium later. However, what the author fails to digest is that verse 33:21 is referring to “an excellent example” in Muhammad’s life – singular, not plural. Also, it refers to “an example”, not “a perfect role model” as the author implies. Moreover, that singular example is explicitly described in the Quran here, which therefore makes it the sunnah of God, i.e., the sunnah of the Quran. The “example” is summarized as follows within the much larger context of the whole story “example”: Certainly you have in the Messenger of God an excellent example [“Us'watun Hasanatun”] for him who hopes in God and in the Last Day and remembers God much. (Quran 33:21) The “excellent example” being referred to here is as the Quran specifically describes, which the author deliberately omitted from his quote. It is the example of continuing to trust and have hope in God in the face of a threat that seems almost impossibly overwhelming, per the real life scenario narrated in significant detail from almost the beginning of this sura all the way through verse 33:27.

Note also how the literal Arabic translation above states that there is “an excellent example” IN Muhammad here, not that Muhammad as a whole person is “an excellent example” (i.e., role model) in everything. The preposition “IN” logically implies a behavioral subset/example of the person as a whole, especially when “example” is a singular noun per the original Arabic.

To make the meaning of Quran 33:21 even more obvious, the behavioral “example” being referring to here is what Muhammad and faithful Muslims actually did upon the siege of Medina by the pagan Meccans and some Jewish tribes (together called “the confederates”), who marshalled an overwhelmingly large force, estimated at >10,000 strong with 600 cavalry (vs. a far smaller Muslim population). This massive force sieging Medina caused many hypocrites and weak Muslims to lose faith, then push Muhammad to surrender or ask to be excused from fighting to defend the community, citing worldly priorities. What this verse is saying is that having hope in God in such dire circumstances is “an excellent example” for all Muslims to lead by, not just Muhammad.

However, Quran 33:21 is also implying that it can only be “an excellent example” to those who already “hope in God and the Last Day and remember God much”, since such hope would be stretched to the limit in this extreme scenario. Those who are weak in faith would likely not be able to imagine this as an example that they could lead by. They may not even be able to “excel” to that level of faith as a follower of those setting the example, even when the circumstances desperately require them to do so.

But let’s not leave this verse just yet, since I know how precious it is to the author’s obsessive “Muhammadism” claim. If this one example implies that Muslims should also be copying everything Muhammad said and did per very unreliable hadiths, then where are the hadiths of Abraham and all of his companions? And does this urging in the Quran to follow one specific example of a prophet now also make Muslims “Abrahamans” and “Abraham-Followerans” in addition to “Muhammadans”? Well, 59 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only according to the author, it should, since the Quran used exactly the same phrase in Arabic to exhort Muslims to recognize “an excellent example IN Abraham AND those with him”: There is for you an excellent example [“Us'watun Hasanatun”] in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever you worship besides God. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever - unless you believe in God and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from God." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal. (Quran 60:4) There was indeed in them [Abraham and those with him] an excellent example [“Us'watun Hasanatun”] for you to follow for those whose hope is in God and in the Last Day. But if any turn away, truly God is Free of all Wants, Worthy of all Praise. (Quran 60:6) Notice how the wording is exactly the same, and in the second excerpt it even uses the same subsequent phrase as in Quran 33:21, where it states the qualification, “for those whose hope is in God and in the Last Day.” Note also how the “excellent example” includes how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims: if they “turn away” from the message, then just leave them be.

Next let’s deal with the next claim that Muhammad “narcissistically” called himself “exalted above other prophets in degrees”, as per Quran 2:253. This one is easy – he didn’t, and neither did the Quran. Here is what the Quran actually states here, proving the author to be an outright liar yet again: These (are) the messengers We have endowed (with gifts), some above others: Among them (were those with) whom God spoke; and some of them He raised (in) degrees. And to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If God had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If God had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but God fulfills His plan. (Quran 2:253) What is most shocking here is that Muhammad is not mentioned even once in this entire verse, and yet the author lies by stating that it explicitly designates Muhammad as “exalted above other prophets”.

What?! This verse merely highlights the obvious fact that God bestowed different favors upon different messengers during their lifetimes. And although some messengers naturally had higher worldly statuses to some degree than others during their lifetime, the Quran makes no mention of who they are here.

Moreover, the Quran uses the plural (“some of them”) here, not singular, which therefore could never logically imply any single prophet, as the author falsely claims. Finally, the Quran uses the word “raised” in the past tense, which can logically only imply during the messengers’ lifetimes, given that the Last Day has not yet arrived to raise anyone by degree beyond their lifetimes.

The last sentence of Quran 2:253 can be ignored in this analysis, but I left it in because it ironically highlights the disastrous conflicts that can result when people make moral distinctions among messengers, as if one had a better message more worthy of being followed than that of another messenger. This is not possible, since all the messengers delivered the same message of uncompromising monotheism (“tawheed”). The choice to accept this message defines one as a “Muslim”, which by no means has just included those who follow Muhammad or the Quran. In fact, it is 60 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only actually forbidden by God to make any meaningful distinction amongst the messengers of God, which is 100% contrary to the author’s embarrassing claim: The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. They all believe in God and His angels and His books and His messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers; and they say: “We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.” (Quran 2:285) And those who believe in God and His messengers and do not make a distinction between any of them - God will grant them their rewards; and God is Forgiving, Merciful. (Quran 4:152) See also the same mandate from God in verses 2:136 and 3:84. In no case is it acceptable for anyone to make any distinction among the messengers of God, let alone to elevate one to the status of being glorified or worshipped! What an utter absurdity.

The same exact analysis as for Quran 2:253 applies to Quran 17:55, as the full and much more accurate translation of this verse easily shows: And it is your Lord that knows best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others. And [by way of example] We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. (Quran 17:55) Again, there is not even a remote reference to Muhammad in here, unless the author is arguing that the prophet David was reborn as Muhammad. At this point, such a whimsical reincarnation theory at least sounds less embarrassing to the author than being caught with his pants down – lying yet again.

As for Quran 21:107, where the author claims the Quran says Muhammad is a “Mercy to the worlds”, there is neither capitalization (of “Mercy”) even possible in the Arabic nor the word “worlds”. It is better translated as “mercy to mankind” given other uses of this root word in the Quran. And the “mercy” being spoken of here is none other than the message of the Quran – not the man Muhammad, who can neither save anyone nor even know who is worthy to be saved: We sent thee not, but as a mercy [“rahmatan”] for all mankind [“Alameen”]. (Quran 21:107) And when you do not bring them a verse [“biayatin”] they say: “Why do you not forge it?” Say: “I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord. This [Quran] is enlightenment from your Lord and a guidance and a mercy [“rahmatun”] for a people who believe”. (Quran 7:203) Blessed is He who sent down the criterion [“Furqan”, i.e., Quran] to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all mankind [“Alameen”]. (Quran 25:1) And no reward do you ask of them for this: it [the Quran] is no less than a message for all mankind [“Alameen”]. (Quran 12:104) Surely you (Muhammad) cannot guide whom you love, but God guides whom He pleases, and He knows best the followers of the right way. (Quran 28:56) Notice also how Quran 21:107 states that that the only purpose of Muhammad was to be “sent…as a mercy to all mankind.” The “only” purpose of Muhammad – hmm, where does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah, right here: 61 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only If they turn away, then (know that) We have not sent you as a warden over them. You have no duty except delivering (the message). (Quran 42:48) Your only duty is delivering (the message), and on Us is the Judgment. (Quran 13:40) (Similar wording is in Quran 5:99 and elsewhere) So the only duty of Muhammad is to deliver a message. So what exactly is this message? Well, the Quran, of course, and logically nothing but the Quran: We have sent down to you [Muhammad] a Scripture (Book). In it is your message. Will you not use reason? (Quran 21:10) But that is not all. The Quran also calls Moses “a mercy” to his people as well, and the Quran defines such mercy as the message of admonition (and guidance) that Moses (like all messengers) brought.

Also, like Muhammad, Moses the man was not “a mercy” to his people, since he was just a man.

However, Moses as messenger (via God’s message) most definitely was a mercy to them, since spiritual mercy comes from God, not man: Nor were you at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur (Sinai) when we called (to Moses). But (you were sent) as a mercy [“rahmatan”] from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before you, in order that they may receive admonition. (Quran 28:46) ( Also see the immediate context, such as Quran 28:45, where the emphasis is on verses received by Moses at Mount Sinai, which identifies the exact “mercy” that Moses brought to his people from God. Oh, and what do you know, yet another prophet was referred to as “a mercy” as well! The Quran even calls Jesus “a mercy” to his people, while simultaneously and repeatedly denouncing (elsewhere in the Quran) the claim that Jesus is a personal “savior” of mankind or a partner (or equivalent) to God. Wasn’t this “mercy” appellation supposed to be a special title of worship reserved only for Muhammad, per the author’s idiotic claim?: He said: “Even so; your Lord says: ‘It is easy for Me, and so that We will make him [Jesus] a sign for mankind [“lilnnāsi”] and a mercy [“rahmatan”] from Us. And it is a matter decreed.’”

(Quran 19:21) Now that we have summarily dispatched with this silly “mercy for all mankind” = glorified savior/personhood claim too, let’s deal with the last wildly incongruous claim of the author in that same quote above, that “He [Muhammad] claimed to have been risen ‘to a praised estate’ (Q.17:79), the station of Intercessor, advising God whom to punish and whom to forgive.” It never ceases to amaze me how far detached from reality both willful ignorance and the motivation to lie will take a person. In that regard, the author takes his hate fantasy to a new level. The complete break from even the most remote connection to reality becomes obvious when one looks at the actual translation of Quran 17:79 with its prior context: Establish worship at the going down of the sun until the dark of night, and (the recital of) the Qur'an at dawn. Lo! (the recital of) the Qur'an at dawn is ever witnessed. And some part of the night awake for prayer, as an additional benefit for you. It may be that your Lord will raise you to a praiseworthy place (i.e., heaven). Say: "O my Lord! Let my entry be by the Gate of Truth 62 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only and Honor, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honor; and grant me from Yourself a helpful authority." (Quran 17:78-80) In short, the author’s interpretation is not only utter nonsense, but deliriously unhinged. This verse is not even talking to Muhammad alone or even directly, nor does it even mention him whatsoever. It is talking to Muslims by advising them to establish regular prayers, which clearly doesn’t apply only to Muhammad. This advice, as the verse states, is so that Muslims can achieve higher piety through prayer – that is all. Note also how the author deliriously asserts that Muhammad is somehow guaranteed an exalted station in heaven to wield the divine “Intercessor” power of God. Wrong. Muhammad is nowhere mentioned and there is clearly no such guarantee here. And that “Intercessor” nonsense was just pulled from the author’s backside as a bold-faced lie. Or, if one prefers to be more generous in judging the author’s intentions, it was yet another hallucinatory interpolation of “fact” from our Messiah of “truth”.

Also, note in particular the words “may be” in Quran 17:79 to express the unambiguous uncertainty of being “raised to a praiseworthy place”. Prayer by itself is no guarantee of reaching such a place. Piety is defined by the Quran as God consciousness, not as adherence to ritual. Ritual is merely the means to achieve and sustain God consciousness, not the end in itself. This is 100% confirmed by Quran 17:80 included above, where Muslims are to pray to be allowed entry into this “praiseworthy place”. If it were guaranteed somehow, why would such a supplication in prayer even be necessary? It is now obvious, too, why the author chose to omit this critical context, since it completely debunks his embarrassing claim.

As a quick final point on Quran 17:79, “praiseworthy” is the best interpretation here, since this word represents the HMD root word in passive participle form to describe the “place” (heaven). It is “praiseworthy” because that is the place in the presence of God.

Islam is All About Rituals?

Before going on to the next verse cited here by the author, let me divert quickly into the author’s claim that Islam is all about “ritual”, per quotes such as these: All these rituals, including the various positions that the worshipper should assume while praying, are meaningless. Communication with God does not require rituals. Yet to Muhammad, they were crucial. (Loc. 3859) Muslims are never concerned about helping another soul and acts of kindness are alien to Islamic mentality. Showing kindness is not a requirement of their faith. Muslims main preoccupation is how to perform the rituals, how not to miss a prayer, how to do wudu, how to enter the toilet, what to say upon entering the toilet and how to clean their keister. It is all about rituals, halal and haram and to endure suffering in exchange for reward. The bigger the suffering, the greater will be the reward. This is the extent of the religiosity of Muslims. This is their definition of piety. This sums up the morality of Islam. Suffering = Reward. (Loc. 7042) More suffering means more rewards. (Loc. 5127)

63 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The belief that there is no gain without pain is so entrenched in our psyche that in some cultures people sacrificed humans and even their own children. Therefore the harder a cult, the truer it appears. (Loc. 5149) No. Only to Muhammad’s ritualistic, sycophantic followers then and today are such trivialities crucial.

What was crucial to Muhammad, as expressed over and over again in the Quran (and hadiths too) is ultimately only God-consciousness. What is clear, however, is that the author himself most likely was brainwashed from his early childhood with all this ritualistic nonsense emphasizing petty peccadillos and punctilious behaviors. No wonder he found “Islam” (as he perceived it) to be repugnant and insufferable. When a Muslim is conscious of God, it is inevitable that good manners will follow – not in a contrived, ritualistic way, but in a perfectly natural way.

Quran 48:1-2 Supports NPD Accusation?

Now, on to the next verse cited by the author. Here is yet another claim by the author that Muhammad was somehow asserting a “narcissistic” claim of special immunity from God’s Judgment: Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a clear victory. That Allâh may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come. (Q.48:1-2) (Loc. 1838) The "clear victory" here is not a free pass from sin in the future, as the author wildly asserts, but just a clear victory in the Battle of Badr, per the very next verse. Also, there is no "will forgive" future tense or definitive confirmation here, but just "may forgive", which is conditional on Muhammad (like all believers) staying on the straight path, per the end of verse 48:2. Why is it not surprising that the author conveniently omitted this critical context, yet again?

Why is it also not surprising that the author actually quotes the verse that completely debunks this claim of his. He does so in a separate hate narrative in a completely separate section of his book. In this other hate narrative, the uncertainty of salvation is now critical to make a different propaganda point. Here he is, tripping over himself in grand style by quoting the very Quran that debunks him: Say, "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner."

(Quran 46:9, as also quoted at Loc. 7078) Overall, the verses at the beginning of sura 48 are just emphasizing that extraordinary acts of faith can offset not just past sins, but also some future ones as well. This forgiveness from God is not guaranteed whatsoever; nor is it peculiar or special to Muhammad alone. As Quran 48:4-5 emphasizes, these verses are directed at all those who fought at Badr with profound faith in God, as Muhammad did: It says that God will “remove from them their evil deeds” with respect to these true believers, thereby effectively reemphasizing and clarifying the message of Quran 48:1-2. This interpretation is driven home with certainty by Quran 46:9, which emphasizes that not even Muhammad knows what his fate or the fate of others would be in the hereafter.

64 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Completely Unhinged, Fact-Free Claims in Support of NPD Before continuing on with the author’s blatant lies on the Quran, let’s take a little break to make note of some of the author’s completely bare-naked NPD claims that have absolutely no support at all. These are just pure entertainment as far as I am concerned. It’s like watching the author have a hate seizure while I laugh at him: He [Muhammad] claimed to be the anointed messenger of God. (Loc. 1785) Anointed? That's Jesus. Also, every messenger of God would meet the criterion of claiming to be a messenger of God as a symptom of “mental illness”. The author is making a circular indictment based on an argument from ignorance fallacy.

He [Muhammad] refused to provide any evidence for that claim [of being a messenger]. (Loc. 1787) Uh, the evidence backing any messenger of God is, above all, his message – in this case, the Quran.

Whoops.

He exploited others promising them heavenly rewards and making them wage war, plunder and fill his coffers with booty. (Loc. 1796) Muhammad lived an ascetic life, as acknowledged by all reputable historians, and even the author himself (as cited elsewhere herein). This claim is simply embarrassing.

He had no empathy neither for his victims whom he plundered, tortured, raped, enslaved, and massacred, nor for those whom he sent to their death, promising them heavenly rewards. (Loc. 1799) No evidence was even provided that he committed these atrocities, let alone what his feelings were when he did so. However, the author’s repeated assertion that he has the paranormal power of transmillennial telepathy is duly noted.

He was extremely haughty and demanded total respect and obedience. (Loc. 1801) Actually, hadiths are quite compelling that he was overwhelmingly modest, not haughty, and even the Quran commands that it was not his job to be a controlling warden over his people. He was only the messenger.

He had a great sense of entitlement. He thought everything belonged to the Company of Allah and his Messenger, Inc., where he was its CEO. (Loc. 1804) Yes, of course Muhammad was a leader, but nothing “belonged” to him beyond what he needed for bare subsistence. Muhammad had virtually no assets to his name, even upon his death.

Quran 33:56 Supports NPD Accusation?

Yes, I know, the author’s sheer idiocy on this NPD claim is starting to lose some of its entertainment value at this point. However, we have to get back to some real fact-based claims now even though they 65 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only have grown quite tiresome in their predictable pattern of gross mistranslation and deception. Here is yet another example for the record: O you who believe! Praise and bless the Prophet with utmost laud and blessing and surrender to him a great surrender.” (Q.33:56). The word used is ‫نُّلَصُي‬ ُ َ. It can mean praise, exalt, glorify, etc.

This verse alone is enough to see Muhammad was a psychotic narcissist. (Loc. 1807) Uh, no, the key word in question merely means send blessings/greetings upon, not glorify or exalt. The same “send blessings/greetings” upon other prophets and even upon all believers is part of Islam as well, so it confers no special status to Muhammad whatsoever. I already severely humiliated David Wood on Twitter with this verse, and the author is welcome to enjoy the same privilege if he wants to flaunt his idiocy still further.

However, what even David Wood was not stupid enough to claim is that the latter part of Quran 33:56 should be translated as “surrender to him [Muhammad] a great surrender”. What an utter absurdity! I am not aware of any reputable translation that asserts such a nonsensical and idolatrous interpretation, and I challenge the author to produce one or be proven a liar yet again. The following is a much more mainstream interpretation, which was addressed to the Muslims who knew Muhammad, since it is no longer possible to greet him today: O you that believe! Send blessings/greetings upon him, and greet him with “Peace”. Quran 33:56) In other words, Muhammad should be greeted with the same greeting that Muslims greet all other Muslims, nothing more. Wow, what a difference the truth makes, eh?

Quran 4:65 Supports NPD Accusation?

And here is yet another gross mistranslation by the author to support his now laughable NPD claim: But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Q. 4:65) The last verse makes it clear that Muhammad was seeking absolute obedience and frowned at any criticism or disagreement. (Loc. 5739) Not surprisingly, and yet again, Quran 4:65 states exactly the opposite of the author’s interpretation here. It states that the hypocrites will not be believers until Muhammad makes judgments that are exactly in line with what they want to hear (i.e., with respect to fighting for a just cause in the context of this particular verse). It does not say that Muhammad must be made judge over everything (or even over anything at all), nor does it say that Muhammad has the judicial power to force them to fight, as verse 4:66 makes unequivocally clear. So what should Muhammad do to these hypocrites instead?

Verses 4:63-64 make that abundantly clear: So leave them alone, and counsel them and speak to them eloquent words that would touch their very souls. (Quran 4:63-64) Yup, sounds like pure coercion to me! Note also that the point of Quran 4:65 is that the hypocrites are demanding a judgment (command) from Muhammad with the hope that he would cave in to their group 66 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only pressure. Ironically, it is not Muhammad who is the one initiating or trying to impose any judgment from himself. He is the one insisting on leaving that as a choice, to which the hypocrites will be morally accountable in the hereafter only, as verses 4:66-70 emphasize. Surprise, surprise – context changes absolutely everything, so much so that the obviously true interpretation can be exactly opposite to the falsely attributed one without context.

NPD Meltdown: Author Now Has Hate Seizure While Foaming at the Mouth And here is yet another wild claim of by the author, not just of “narcissism” this time, but of “psychopathic narcissism” If one psychobabble label is not quite enough for the required shock value, then why not just add another one on to kick it up a notch? Alrighty then, just let me get some more popcorn first. Take a look at this gem: This made Muhammad, God by proxy. To obey Allâh meant to obey Muhammad and to displease him is to displease God. This is the ultimate power a narcissist seeks. (Loc. 2000) This is everything a narcissistic psychopath craves for – to be God incarnate. Muhammad manipulated everyone until he ascended to the throne of Allâh and became the de facto God. (Locc. 6539) Isn't it extremely odd and incongruous then how totally opposite the message of the Quran is to the author’s unhinged, fact-free delusions? There is no possible way to support such a hilarious claim given the unequivocal and perfectly consistent message of monotheism (tawheed) in the Quran. There is only One worthy of all glory and all worship, and that is God. Muhammad is nothing but a messenger of that message, and he was commanded not to be a warden over others.

We have now seen how the author carpet bombs the reader with a flurry of lies and flagrant misdirection from the Quran to build a deceptive foundation for his juvenile arguments. Even though these lies may be enough to sway the truly ignorant or to pump up the hate of budding bigots or cultready sycophants, the author still needs one more convincing injection of “shocking facts” to bring it all home. For anyone still wavering, these final “facts” will surely push such a reader over the edge into the abyss of unhinged hatred against Islam. However, before I “analyze” these “facts”, let me just put them on the table “as is”, per the author’s own words, while I roll on the floor with laughter: The following are some of the claims Muhammad made about himself.

•

The very first thing that Allâh Almighty ever created was my soul.[115]

•

First of all things, the Lord created my mind.[116]

•

I am from Allâh, and the believers are from me.[117]

•

Just as Allâh created me noble, he also gave me noble character.[118]

•

Were it not for you, [O Muhammad] I would not have created the universe.[119]

(Loc. 1855)….

•

I am the most honored of the First and the Last, and I say this without pride.[121] 67

Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only (Loc. 1865) The reason I am laughing so hard here is that all of this Internet sewage comes from some bogus ‘End Times’, Muhammad-worshipping, cult mysticism website called “The Muhammadan Reality” (http://www.muhammadanreality.com). Are you serious? What Muslim in his right mind would even refer to himself with the derogatory, idolatrous term “Muhammadan”? Muslims worship only God, not Muhammad.

Just when I thought this book couldn’t get more absurd, it descends into a full-blown clown show. I highly encourage everyone to spend some time on this web site just for laughs, and to get some understanding of how truly juvenile the author’s arguments are. Although it goes without saying that such quotes don’t even deserve an intellectual response, frankly it is not even possible. Even this quack web site provides no references to explain from what magic hat they pulled these quotes out of! The only exception is the moderately adulatory footnote 118 above, which appears to be from Sira, which is even more unreliable than unreliable hadiths.

X.

A SAMPLING OF UNREFERENCED AND UNSUPPORTED BALD CLAIMS

I could go on and on about how many unreferenced and unsupported bald claims were made in this book, but let me try to cover at least a sampling of these in a list of quotes that have essentially zero backup attached to them.

Muhammad Was Named “Damaged/Rotten” as a Child Muhammad’s birth name was Qathem….Qathem means damaged or rotten, such as damaged milk. Al-Halabi explains, “After the death of Qathem Ibn Abd-Al-Mu’taleb (Muhammad’s Uncle) at the age of nine, three years before Muhammad was born, his father Abd-Al-Mu’taleb felt so bad that when the prophet was born, he named him Qathem.” The Prophet changed his name to Muhammad, “the praised one” either at the age of thirty or after he migrated to Medina. This information is not known to Muslims for obvious reasons. It is not flattering. (Loc. 8265, footnote 7) First of all, “Abd-Al-Mu’taleb” was not the father of Muhammad, as implied by the excerpt, but the grandfather, which is very misleading. Second, the author has presented zero evidence for the bald claim that Muhammad changed his own name at any time in his life, let alone “at the age of thirty or after he migrated to Medina.” The author is merely trying to manufacture more facts for his hate narratives of “narcissism” and to counter the evidence that a linguistic derivative of the name “Muhammad” is referenced in the Bible.

But that is not all. The author even manufactured the “fact” about “Qathem” meaning “damaged” or “rotten”. His cited source doesn’t even say this. The actual reference from Sirah al-Halabia explaining this name change, which he did not quote, is as follows: When Qathem Bin Abdul Muttalib died three years before the birth of the Messenger of Allah (Peace Be Upon Him), he was a boy of nine years. He (Abdul Muttalib) suffered greatly. So when 68 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only the Messenger of Allah (Peace Be Upon Him) was born he named him Qathem until his mother Aminah informed him that she was ordered in her dream to name him 'Muhammad'.

In other words, the author simply lied about the facts in his own cited source, unless he can produce a validated quote to the contrary. The cited source actually supports the exact opposite interpretation, which is the following: it was ultimately his mother who named Muhammad as a child, and, if anything, his name was guided not by any potential narcissism, but by the implication of miraculous intervention via his mother’s dream.

But what about that name “Qathem”. What does it actually mean anyway? According to Arabic lexicons, the root of this word actually means “a companion, abundance of giving” and “donor, one who gives abundantly”. This point is discussed in more detail on this web site, towards the bottom of the page, which is my source for both this lexicon information and the author’s fabricated fact from Sirah alHalabia, per the prior two paragraphs: http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/ (also visit for more debunking of this book) Now just take a step back for a minute after seeing the real truth here. Ask yourself some common sense questions. Was it just a convenient slip that “Abd-Al-Mu’taleb” was misleadingly presented as the father (instead of grandfather) so that the reader would not question why the grandfather would get to name the child instead of the mother, the latter of which is customary throughout the world (i.e., parents get to name their kids, not grandparents)? But most important of all, what fool would name their own grandchild and child “damaged” or “rotten” (remember, the original Qathem was very much loved, and he died at only nine years old)? Such an assertion is ludicrous, of course. However, this is exactly the kind of hate Kool-Aid that the author is so cravenly desperate to inculcate into his devotees.

The author will apparently not hesitate to make up his own facts so that he can poison that Kool-Aid with as much hate as possible.

Muhammad Was a Maladjusted Social Misfit as a Youth …[O}ne point, when he [Muhammad] tried to act like a normal youth and sneaked into a wedding party, he felt nauseated and was weighed down by excruciating spasms. (Loc. 4045).

Muhammad was a loner during his youth, up to the time he launched his prophetic carrier and surrounded himself with, not peers, but votaries and adulators. Only as a superior being he felt at ease. Until then he appeared aloof, dull, and humorless. He was ignored in social settings.

During his formative years he showed a flattened and restricted range of emotions and appeared indifferent to what was going on around him. (Loc. 4074) At the age of twenty five, no woman had ever shown interest in Muhammad. (Loc. 2189) Absolutely no sources were cited for these three elaborate and wild assertions above. This is the typical irrational logic of the author. He vomits a constant stream of such bald claims based on nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy. In other words, if no evidence exists to the contrary, then his claim must be true, even when zero evidence exists to support it.

69 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Was Conceived for Status, and No One Tried to Harm/Persecute Him Some wealthy Arab women hired wet nurses for their infants. This allowed them to have another child right away. More children meant higher status. (Loc. 488) Except for Muhammad’s own claim, there is no historical evidence that the Meccans ever tried to harm him. (Loc. 886) Again, no support was provided for any of this nonsense, per the above two quotes. However, totally contradicting them are the biographical accounts of actual academic historians of Muhammad, including multiple non-Muslim ones. For example, Lesley Hazleton’s biography covers this part of Muhammad’s early childhood quite well, including the detailed circumstances around the hiring of his wet nurse. All academic biographies of Muhammad that I have read, even by non-Muslims, also make it clear that Muhammad’s life was clearly in danger of assassination on multiple occasions and that the Muslim community was also severely persecuted, with confirmations from secondary sources independent of Muhammad’s mere opinion. Some of the biographies of Muhammad on my shelf, just from non-Muslim writers alone, include the following: http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Statesman-Galaxy-Bookebook/dp/B00267STO4/ref=la_B001IQUPKK_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396440675&sr=1-3 by W. Montgomery Watt: http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Story-Prophet-Deepak-Chopraebook/dp/B003V1WSGO/ref=sr_1_7?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1396440618&sr=17&keywords=biographies+of+Muhammad by Deepak Chopra http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Muhammad-BarnabyRogerson/dp/1587680297/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396441270&sr=11&keywords=rogerson+muhammad by Barnaby Rogerson http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-Time-Eminent-Livesebook/dp/B00DTTEDLQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396441349&sr=11&keywords=Karen+Armstrong+muhammad by Karen Armstrong (also see other books by her on Islam and Muhammad) http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Muslim-Story-Muhammadebook/dp/B008ON42FY/ref=pd_sim_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZW7EPCS557HGPMA2WEJ by Lesley Hazleton http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Life-Based-EarliestSources/dp/1594771537/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396440862&sr=11&keywords=martin+lings by Martin Lings, who apparently converted to Islam after writing this biography http://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Editionebook/dp/B004SOQ0U8/ref=pd_sim_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZW7EPCS557HGPMA2WEJ by Reza Aslan.

Yes, he is a Muslim, but this is a very academically objective read filled with deeper historical facts that other authors miss, so I highly recommend this one to round out any biographical review by non-

70 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims. Like the author, he is also ethnically Iranian and fled Iran around the Iranian Revolution.

How’s that for irony in perspective?

Fasting is Unhealthy and Leads to Kidney and Liver Disease In addition, for one whole month in the year they fast and abstain from eating and drinking, from dawn to dusk, a practice that can be particularly taxing in summertime leading to sever kidney and liver disease. (Loc. 4695) Nope. Research proves exactly the opposite, that fasting has significant health benefits. The claim that it causes kidney and liver disease was left completely unsupported, with no reference whatsoever cited to back it up. If someone already has kidney or liver disease, they would not be obligated to fast.

Muhammad Demanded Submission to Him or Death However, as time passed and his power increased his ambition grew. Eventually he demanded that everyone either submit to him or be killed. (3246) Again, no backup for this wild claim was provided. It is a lie that the author loves to repeat, though, in the hope that repetition will eventually make it true. Hmm, didn’t someone try such a propaganda tactic before?

Muhammad Wanted to be King and Feared “How great it would be to be a prophet and maybe also a king, to be loved, respected and feared!” he [Muhammad] must have thought while listening to those stories. (Loc. 2347) When the author can’t find a quote for his hate narrative, he literally just makes one up via his other paranormal (?) ability of trans-millennial psychic telepathy. In other words, we get to laugh as we watch the author running around naked asserting blatant projection fallacies.

Muhammad Tried to Force Everyone to Convert Islam is both missionary and imperialistic. Muhammad’s main objective was to conquer and dominate. He tried to force everyone to convert to his cult, starting with his family and relatives. (Loc. 2507) Force? When? Who? Utter nonsense! The fact that the author can’t come up with even one example of a forced conversion is pathetic when making such a wild, unhinged claim.

71 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Demanded Submission, Jizya or Death There he raided villages and towns and after killing unarmed men and looting them, demanded survivors to submit to him, pay jizyah, or face death. (Loc. 2515) Again zero references were supplied to support this wild claim. It sounds like great over-the-top material for the author’s upcoming “feature film” though. Back in the real world, we’ll be covering this ground in debate topics 3 and 4, so there’s no need to dive into this topic any further here.

Muslims Must Kill Other Muslims Who Don’t Emigrate (Follow the Group) This verse [Quran 8:72] says Muslims should not give protection to other Muslims who do not emigrate. They should kill them, unless they comply and leave. (Loc. 5402) At this point, I am seriously questioning the author’s mental health. How he can hallucinate a command in the Quran that does not remotely exist is beyond me. But even more unhinged is the command that he hallucinates: that Muslims are supposedly commanded to kill other Muslims!

As for the first sentence of the quote, it would simply be impossible for Muslims to give protection to others who remained behind in Mecca, so the operative word is “cannot” give protection rather than “should not”. At the time of migration, Muslims were far too weak to protect anyone in Mecca. This verse also emphasizes the eradication of tribalism in Islam. Tribal loyalties (including of protection) no longer had any priority.

Muhammad Supports Morally Wrong Ideas Even When He Rejects Them Muhammad wisely decided to let go of his macabre design. Ibn Ubayy’s son’s gesture, however, is praised by Muslim historians and commentators and is regarded as an example of true faith.

(Loc. 5588) Here is another example of the author making a claim that is in exact opposition to his facts in “support” of it. So even when Muhammad opposes an idea, this means that he promoted it? Got it.

Muhammad Reacted Violently to Prevent “Dropouts” from Islam Hence the narcissist's panicky and sometimes violent reactions to “dropouts” from his cult. (Loc. 2493) Note how the author provides not one example of such a “panicky and sometimes violent reaction to ‘dropouts’” by Muhammad. Why? Because there is none. By contrast, there is at least one such example in the hadiths where Muhammad is shown conversing with one such “dropout”. Right in front of Muhammad, he stated and repeated his intention to apostatize while they were in Medina, after which he would return to his tribal community. So what did Muhammad do? He of course refused to cancel that man’s pledge to Islam, since that was not Muhammad’s pledge to cancel. Only that man

72 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only himself could cancel his pledge to God. Then Muhammad happily let him apostatize and return to his tribe. Here is a quote of that hadith: A bedouin came to the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬and gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and said (to the Prophet (‫))ﷺ‬, "Please cancel my pledge (of embracing Islam and of emigrating to Medina)." The Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬refused (that request) three times and said, "Medina is like a furnace, it expels out the impurities (bad persons) and selects the good ones and makes them perfect. (Bukhari 30:107) I say “happily let him apostatize” because that is exactly what the hadith implies. Like any reasonable leader, Muhammad only wanted Muslims who would be sincere about Islam, not hypocrites who have been “forced” to convert or remain Muslim. They would be the first ones to turn their backs on the Muslims in any crisis or to turn against the Muslims as treasonous spies. Even for practical or social reasons, why would any community want phony members who secretly reject that community or its values? Such hypocrites are condemned in the severest of terms in the Quran, so why would Muslims (or Muhammad) be absurdly commanded to recruit a whole lot more of them?! The myth of Muslims desiring a whole bunch of fake, forced “converts” is just that – 100% hysterical myth, with no grounding whatsoever in reality or common sense.

Muhammad Was “Both Insane and a Liar” He [Muhammad] was also known to fly into extreme rages… (Loc. 3827) [Implies Muhammad was insane] Muhammad was both insane and a liar. This is possible only if you are a psychopathic narcissist.

(Loc. 2410). [Asserts Muhammad was a liar AND insane] They [Muslims] were to believe that the leader is the manifestation of God. But the leader knew that all devotions are to him and God is a pretext, an instrument to mobilize the masses and through them gain power. (Loc. 7358) [Asserts Muhammad was a liar] Muhammad believed in his cause and was sincere in his claim. Yet, he could not differentiate the imaginary from the real. (Loc. 447) [Asserts Muhammad was NOT a liar but insane] Thanks to another mental illness, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, the prophet of Islam had vivid hallucinations, which he interpreted as mystical and divine intimations When he claimed he heard voices, saw angels and other ghostly entities, he was not lying. He could not distinguish reality from fantasy. (Loc. 175) [Unequivocally asserts Muhammad was NOT a liar but only insane – my emphases in bold] Again, the author makes all these assertions without any credible factual or logical support. Moreover, the author contradicts himself severely, per the notations after the quotes, since he simultaneously asserts that Muhammad was a psychopathic liar while also being fully sincere and honestly believing he was a messenger of God (due to TLE), and therefore not lying for the sake of his narcissistic benefit.

Whoopsee.

73 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Given that this contradiction strikes to the very core of the author’s primary theses, this is one hilarious and major blunder indeed.

Lesson learned for author and all Islamophobes: if you’re going to run with multiple wild propaganda campaigns at the same time, just make sure that they all remain consistent. Also, don’t fall for the Big Mac propaganda temptation, no matter how juicy it looks. For example, “insane AND a liar” sounds deliciously hateful to a bigot’s core hate consumers, but it will severely alienate any prospective hate consumers, who will realize the irrational oxymoron that such a conflation implies.

Muhammad Suffered from Suicidal Depression and Impotence Sometimes he [Muhammad] was euphoric and full of energy, while at other times he suffered from depression to the point of contemplating suicide. These findings explain why he had such a high libido yet, despite numerous young and fertile sexual partners, remained childless. This suggests he was unable to perform sexually. (Loc. 4530) These sexually-obsessed claims and wild psychobabble extrapolations are hilarious. There is zero evidence of depression or suicidal thought after Muhammad’s prophetic career was underway, and he had many children, including one very late in his life.

Muhammad’s Scribe Changed Revelations, Which Muhammad Accepted Ibn Abi Sarh was a scribe of Muhammad. He was more educated than his prophet. He often would correct his “revealed” verses and suggest better wordings. Muhammad accepted his suggestions. (Loc. 5929) Again, absolutely no evidence was supplied to support this claim.

Muhammad Violated the (Non-Existent) Law to Kill Apostates The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation. Then he apostatized and returned to Quraish [Mecca]… He was to be killed for apostasy but was saved through Othman’s intercession.[398] (Loc. 5937) OK, so yet another apostate wasn't killed, which now implies Muhammad violated the non-existent command from God to kill apostates twice! I always find it amusing when Islamophobes step in their own crap and lies on another hate narrative while pursuing a different hate narrative. So according to the author’s own fact here, which I agree with 100%, there is no penalty whatsoever for mere apostasy in Islam. Wonderful – we agree on something now.

74 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Burned Muslims Alive in a Mosque Who Disagreed with Him He [Muhammad] actually did burn a mosque with all the people inside it. Muslims of Zarrar (a place close to Medina) had built a mosque. They invited him to come and bless it. He told them that he would come after the raid of Tabuk. When he returned from Tabuk some malicious people told him that the Muslims of Zarrar had invented their own version of Islam and were not following the Islam of the Prophet. Muhammad did not try to investigate. He ordered his men to burn the mosque will the worshippers inside. Then he revealed a verse to justify his hideous crime. “And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity – to disunite the Believers – and in preparation for one who warred against Allâh and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allâh doth declare that they are certainly liars.” (Q.9:107) (Loc. 5951) You would think that the author would provide support for such a critical claim that Muhammad burned people to death. But, astonishing, he does not. Why? Because it never happened. Not only did the author provide no evidence for this wild assertion, but he seems to forget that there are numerous hadiths in Muhammad’s own words emphasizing that punishing any human with fire is absolutely forbidden by God. The verse from the Quran that the author quotes makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to the heinous act of burning people alive that the author is claiming happened. It is just a red herring masquerading as a supporting fact.

Muhammad Prohibited Drawing His Picture Because He Thought He was Ugly It is not unlikely that the reason Muhammad prohibited drawing his picture was because he was conscious of his facial and bodily deformities. (Loc. 4423) The fact that the author makes such an absurd claim is again more evidence of the idolatrous “Muhammadism” that he was brainwashed into as a child (see discussion below). Only someone raised to ignore the greatest sin in Islam – idolatry – would make such an ignorant claim about why drawing Muhammad’s image should be avoided by Muslims. The Quran sternly warns against the worship of prophets and scholars instead of worshipping God and following the Quran. Making images and idols of any person that people could be tempted to worship was strongly warned against by Muhammad.

Given that Muhammad is considered the key human figure in Islam, such a warning would logically have to apply to him as well, if not most of all. That said, the hilarious confirmation bias that the author indulges in here regarding his hallucinations of “facial and bodily deformities” at least provides some entertainment value to offset his brainwashed idiocy.

“The Trinity of Islam” is Actually a Duo These three dimensions are indivisible. They form the trinity of Islam. (Loc. 8117) What "trinity"? Only two dimensions were explicitly noted: social and political. If you’re going to be so bold as to invoke “the trinity of Islam” as a root cause, then at least make sure you can count to three first.

75 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Islam is Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution Once we understand this Islamic trinity it will be easy to defeat it. We cannot ban Islam as a religion, but we can ban it as a political system. As a political system Islam is incongruent with democracy and our laws. For example, Islam does not recognize the equality of all men before the law. It does not grant equal rights to both genders. It also does not recognize the freedom of Muslims to leave their faith. On these grounds Islam is in violation of our laws and as such it can be banned. (Loc. 8122) Given how this argument forms the cornerstone of the author’s claim that “Islam must be banned”, it is quite laughable that the author did not even bother to analyze or prove any of the points on which this ban would be based. For example, not even one dissenting scholarly view was entertained – not one. A lot of Muslims, including myself, would categorically disagree with all three of the baldly stated premises for the ban. The author is proving himself to be nothing more than a brainwashed loon stuck in a vicious cycle of hate perpetually reinforcing this very same brainwashing.

Islam Caused Nazism, Communism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Mafia, etc.

Nazism, communism, fascism, the destruction of the Classical Civilization, the corruption of the Catholic Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the secret societies, the Mafia, the holdup of the Enlightenment for one thousand years, countless wars, and hundreds of millions of deaths, are all influences of Islam. (Loc. 7462) Wow, It seems like all the world’s worst catastrophic atrocities can be traced back to Islam according to the author. That is one heck of a lot of Islamdunnit to swallow in a hurry. Like fast food, it has a lot of taste and popular appeal, but zero substance. And it certainly doesn’t digest well at all. That said, I still found this bombastic invocation worthy of the prestigious Islamophobia Big Mac award. I have rarely seen so much Islamdunnit stacked and packed into a single indigestible, vacuous morsel for the masses.

Bravo!

Arabs were “Illiterate, Lazy and Indolent”, But Jews were “Educated and Prosperous” The bulk of the industry [in Medina] was in the hands of the Jews, who were educated and prosperous. The Arabs were illiterate, lazy, and indolent. They had few skills and worked for the Jews. When the Jews were exterminated, the city changed drastically. There were no more businesses where people could work and earn a livelihood. The economy of the town had collapsed altogether. The citizens relied entirely on plunder for their sustenance. (Loc. 5960) There’s no backup again for these racist assertions, of course. However, please ignore the above quote and move on. The author was tripping on a little too much psychedelic incense here after one of his trans-millennial projection sessions.

76 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Arabs Are Inherently Very Evil and Stupid People per Their “Materia Prima” Muhammad succeeded because he preached to a largely ignorant, superstitious and chauvinistic people. The qualities he needed to bolster his marauding religion were already present in his early followers. Chauvinism, bigotry, haughtiness, arrogance, megalomania, stupidity, boastfulness, lustfulness, greed, disdain for life, and other ignoble character traits that are the hallmarks of Islam were already present as materia prima among Arabs. These attributes were then imposed on other nations who fell under the domination of Islam. Those who had these base attributes found in Islam a common ground and a “divine” validation for their deviant criminal penchant. (Loc. 5351) So the author’s vacuous, racist claim here is that Islam only succeeded because the Arabs are inherently very evil people to the core, even before they became Muslim. In fact, Arabs are apparently guilty of having just about all of the most malevolent human characteristics imaginable as part of their “materia prima”. Well, if nothing else, I think the author has at least firmly persuaded me that he is a racist pig, but I am not sure what other point he was trying to make here. For example, I guess we are supposed to quietly ignore the fact that only about 18% of all Muslims today are Arabs, so his racist theory seems to be falling flat on its face. But perhaps he can still salvage it. According to the author, a “deviant criminal penchant” and other very sinful behavior is a communicable disease uniquely spread amongst Muslims.

Well, golly, this smarty-pants author has thought of everything and has stumped me again.

The “Main Incentive” to Convert to Islam was Wealth and Sex The main incentive for these early believers to sally forth in jihad was wealth and sex.

Isolationism and group pressure made them accept things that they would have otherwise considered objectionable, and even abhorrent. (Loc. 5972) Oh, come on. This is such a juicy story, and you just leave it there, and again with zero source quotes to spice it up? OK, just forget the source quotes and any connection to reality. Just run with this plot line – it might even be a great feature film too, like the great one you’re working on now to change the world as we know it. Unfortunately, there’s just one little wrinkle you should work out first, though. Why would youths leave wealth and women opportunities behind in Mecca (prostitutes were plentiful there) just for wealth and women opportunities in Medina that would first require an extended period of austerity? “Feature film” moviegoers will also want to understand the "group pressure" dynamic coercing people into being motivated by wealth and women. Since you didn’t provide any sources on this either, you can just make that part up too. The plot has a brilliant foundation, though – it just needs a little massaging. It’s got greed, sex, violence, and (with the right sound track), even rock ‘n roll. A guaranteed Hollywood hit.

Muslims (Especially Converts) Are Taught “the Virtues and Rewards of Jihad” New believers are asked to refrain from certain foods, eat halal, perform the obligatory prayers, fast and give zakat – minor requirements that can be easily observed. Gradually, they are introduced to the virtues and rewards of jihad. (Loc. 5986) 77 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only What a joke. After decades of interacting with Muslims, not one Muslim has ever tried to preach or persuade me about the "virtues" of violent jihad! Also, it is good to hear the author’s concession that the pillars of Islam are so minor and easy to follow. So much for the author’s other argument about Islam being so difficult to practice in order to increase "cult" loyalty! Here is that contradictory claim here: A basic axiom of faith is one that also contains a paradox, which can be stated as follows: The more difficult a doctrine is to follow, the more appealing it becomes. (Loc. 5075) Islam is precious to its believers, precisely because it is difficult. (Loc. 5128)

Muslims Are Commanded How to “Think, Act, and Feel” by a “Leadership” The leadership [of Muslims] dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel. (Loc. 4699) Uh, what "leadership"? There is no recognized clergy in Islam, let alone a "leadership" tasked to enforce how Muslims should “think, act, and feel”. What utter nonsense. Mosques can barely afford administrators/imams, who are by far the lowest paid out of all religious leaders in the U.S. (nearly 1/5 of what Rabbis are paid!). See this link for details: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/01/how_much_do_rabbis_priests_pa stors_and_imams_earn_.html I’ll give the author two points for pumping up the paranoid and ignorant hordes of Islamophobes, though.

In Islam, Rape of Non-Muslims and Lying is Allowed, and Stealing is Commanded But raiding and looting the non-believers is prescribed in the Quran and was practiced by Muhammad. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is a grave sin, punishable by stoning. However, rape of unbelieving women, even if they are married is allowed in the Quran. Lying in Islam is prohibited, except when the intent is to deceive the non-Muslims, which is then elevated as taqiyah, one of the twin wings of jihad. (Loc. 4777) Ah, yes, IslamdunnitALL. The only problem is that the author forgot to cite the backup to support these bald claims. Oh well, if the Messiah of “truth” said it, then I guess we have to take his word for it.

As for the hilarious “taqiyya” propaganda, that has been thoroughly debunked in these links, among many others: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/taqiyya-the-ultimate-intellectual-cop-out/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christianbelief/ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_taqiyya_libel_against_muslims 78 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only This last link also included very clear and unambiguous quote from the Quran that lying is absolutely prohibited in Islam. Moreover, it includes many hadiths saying the same. By contrast, there is not one verse from the Quran, the only source of God’s law in Islam, that permits any lying whatsoever. Yes, indeed, folks, the truth about not lying shall set you free.

Lying in Islam is Called “Taqiyya” and Allowed (per Ghazali) Lying as a strategy to advance Islam is called taqiyah. Taqiyah, allows a Muslim to lie and say anything to pull the wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and deceive them. One of the major objectives, and a persistent tactic of taqiyah, is to downplay the threat of Islam. The goal is to fool potential victims that jihad is not directed at them. (Loc. 1713) Imam Ghazzali's [sic] [387] authority in Islam is indisputable. He said: “When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible”.[388] (Loc. 5847) When Physicians tried to find the connection between the brain and hand’s movements, it was Imam Muhammad Ghazzali [sic] who mocked scientific inquiry and stated “hands move because God wants them to move” (Loc. 7429) See comment immediately above regarding these phony “taqiyya” hysterics. The fear-mongering propaganda goal of the author is clear, especially since the vast majority of Muslims have never even heard of this ridiculous concept. The goal is simply to invalidate every contrary argument from any Muslim as simply “lying”. In other words, “taqiyya” is nothing more than the ultimate ad hominem nuclear weapon fallacy. Just shout “TAQIYYA!!”, and the debate is instantly over and won. Just make sure to keep chanting that magic invalidation word as you take your victory lap.

As for the desperate Ghazali quote to substantiate that “taqiyya” is part of Islam, I always find it so cute when rabid Islamophobes hide behind the coattails of medieval mullahs on powerful politicians’ payrolls. It is even cuter when they parrot these medieval mullahs word for word to make an emphatic point that no Muslim must be allowed to challenge. In other words, the classic ad verecundiam fallacy is inevitably invoked whenever a Muslim does so, something like this: “Do you think you know more than medieval mullah X”?

My first answer in this case is, well yes, since you proved in your own words (per your third quote above) what an irrational nitwit your “indisputable authority” can be. My more general answer is that I don’t have to “know more” when I can see all the relevant facts on the table just like these “scholars” did – and likely even more facts than they saw thanks to modern textual search capabilities. All I have to do is analyze those facts better and more rationally, and I am quite confident that I can do so based on the irrational idiocy that most of these medieval mullahs have provably spouted.

However, that is not nearly the most important reason Muslims should be thinking for themselves and stop venerating medieval mullahs. Ghazali, like Ibn Kathir and many others, was ultimately a very politically compromised “scholar” commissioned by an autocratic ruler who had his own strategic, Machiavellian empire agenda. As for Ghazali’s “authority in Islam [being] indisputable”, it is only indisputable to brainwashed Islamophobe zealots and to those who are following the religion of 79 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Ghazalism, rather than Islam. I think I have humiliated the author enough on this point – time to move on. He will no doubt invoke more Ghazalism, Ibn Kathirism, etc., so we’ll take it up then

Muslims Will Tyrannically Abuse and Control Muslim Converts Among themselves, however, they [Muslims] act very differently. They are tyrannical and demanding. Once you convert to Islam and the honeymoon is over, Muslims will drop the smiling mask and become high-handed, aggressive, and abusive. (Loc. 2616) This one is not just way out in left field, but completely out-of-the-ball-park wacko. I have never witnessed any such behavior in any Muslims in my entire life. This is yet another bald claim, playing to the crowd and preying on the reader’s fear of what he has never had a chance to experience or witness for himself. The propaganda intention is abundantly clear here, especially given how zero backup was provided to support this wild claim. The only other explanation is that this is just more Iranian Revolution projection onto Islam from the author’s own head.

I mean, just think about it for a moment. Since there is no recognized clergy in Islam whatsoever, and almost never just one designated Imam in mosques of any size who could play petty dictator, how would this morality police oppression and abuse be carried out exactly? Who would even have the legitimate authority to do so? Also, how would it even be funded in the vast majority of the world where mosques and Muslim communities are grossly underfunded? The major exception, of course, would be puppet theocratic dictatorships who have hijacked religion as a tool of political oppression masquerading as religious “scholarship” (i.e., what Islamophobes laughably call “sharia law”). All it takes is a bit of common sense to see how absurd and hysteria-fuelled the author’s claim here really is.

Adoption is Prohibited in Islam, and Zainab Marriage Was an “Abomination” He claimed God ordered him to marry Zeinab to show people that adoption was an abomination. As the result adoption is prohibited in Islam and countless orphans have lost their chance to a loving family life all because Muhammad wanted to find an excuse for his own lustfulness. (Loc. 2707) What ignorant nonsense! Adoption is not forbidden in Islam - just taking the last name of one's adoptive father, per Quran 33:4-5. The phrase “your adopted children” is actually referenced right there in the Quran.

The purpose of this marriage was to show that marriage to one's adopted daughter-in-law should not be forbidden because there is no blood relationship with an adopted son. Modern science makes this logic very clear. The author, by contrast, seems stuck in a primitive morality box that flatly contradicts science. Tsk, tsk, Messiah of “truth”.

80 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Reza Aslan is a “Sleek Snake” and a Secret Leader of “Stealth Jihad” The West is invaded by thousands of sleek snakes like Reza Aslan. If the Westerners don’t wake up and identify their enemy, this enemy will destroy them from within. (Loc. 1722) Yes, Reza Aslan is so “sleek” that all this pathetic author can do is throw childish ad hominems against him instead of rebutting his extremely well researched books and articles. This author could not rebut Reza Aslan in his wildest dreams. The thought of Reza Aslan rising up as the “enemy” against nonMuslims to “destroy them from within” has to be one of the funniest, most unhinged, and delusional hate fantasies I have ever heard. Yeah, and Reza Aslan will bring with him an army of Teletubbies led by Barney the Dinosaur.

All Crimes Can Be Islamic, and “Honor Killing” is Islamic Too Thousands of young women and girls are murdered in the hands of their own parents and brothers, every year, in the name of “honor.” There is no crime that a Muslim would not commit, when ends justify the means. (Loc. 4782) Those darned evil Moozlims are at it again, and there is “no crime that a Muslim would not commit”. So when the author is making sweeping claims of absolute evil and criminal attribution against Muslims, that pompous posturing is supposed to impress his readers’ rational minds? Exactly how? And the other tiny little problem is that the author forgot to cite any factual or analytic support for his claim whatsoever. I’m sure it was just a minor oversight.

No doubt he was also going to mention that honor killing is neither commanded nor advocated nor permitted anywhere in the Quran, and that honor killing is highly correlated with regional culture clusters and actually cuts across all religious boundaries within those regions. The cluster in India and Pakistan is the most interesting and concentrated to study by far, especially near the border. It accounts for roughly 40% of the 5,000 honor killings worldwide per year. Some NG0’s put the estimate of honor killings in India at four times the official figure, though, which would make the honor killings in India alone 4,000 instead of 1,000: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/honour-killings-india-crying-shame20131127105910392176.html The author was also no doubt going to explain that this repugnant practice long predates Islam and is actually not even prevalent in Saudi Arabia, where one would presume it should be most concentrated based on the Islamdunnit thesis. Oh well, I’m sure the Messiah of “truth” can somehow explain why those who follow Islam are uniquely susceptible to this criminal behavior. Again, just a minor oversight, no doubt.

81 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Per the Author, I am an “Ignorant Fool or Evil”, Unintelligent, and Dangerous Foolish people and evil people will always gravitate towards evil doctrines. Those who find Islam attractive are either fool or evil. No sane person, no good person, would ever find Islam appealing. (Loc. 4965) I am always suspicious of non-Muslims who defend Islam. I find it hard to believe that any honest person would side with this faith of hate and terror, unless they are ignorant. (Loc. 8034) Today’s devout Muslims are no different. Those who are more devoted are more dangerous.

(Loc. 5730) Smart people hardly become attracted to a religion like Islam. Islam is repulsive to intelligent people. (Loc. 7115) Since the author is making an absolute claim here, I would be interested in hearing how he argues which of these two buckets I fit into: ignorant fool or evil? If I’m evil, then I must be one heck of a liar, which he will look like a paranoid fool trying to prove. If I’m an ignorant fool, then what lower life form does that make the author after a “fool” like me shreds his book’s arguments with such incredible ease? Hmm. Also, given that I consider myself “devout”, I would love to hear how the author can argue that my views are somehow “dangerous”! But make it good, though. I’m getting some popcorn.

Muhammad Was a “Coward” in Battle Muhammad stayed safely in the rear while encouraging their foolish followers to be courageous and not fear death. (Loc. 5029) When Muhammad took part in a war, he would always stay behind his troops, protected by his special entourage. Nowhere in the authentic biographies of Muhammad, do we read that he ever fought personally. (Loc. 1136) In none of the wars that Muhammad fought did he put his own life in danger. He stood behind his troops, wearing often two coats of chain-link mail, one on top of the other.[191] (Loc. 2846) He [Muhammad] built his empire without fighting a single battle personally. (Loc. 2355) This cowardice claim or something similar was repeated many times, yet not once was a source document cited to support it. By contrast, historical sources have shown, and several non-Muslim biographers of Muhammad have acknowledged, that not only did Muhammad fight directly in battles, but he was also injured in battle as well.

But what might have inspired the author to lie about this cowardice claim? What source could he be hiding? The most obvious one is the Quran, where Muhammad gave orders “from behind” at the Battle of Badr: [Remember] when you [fled and] climbed [the mountain] without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind. (Quran 3:153)

82 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Quite ironically, the reason Muhammad was “calling you from behind” was because those men had disobeyed his order to fight and were running up a mountain blindly like cowards to escape the battle.

Yes, Muhammad was technically “behind” them, but Muhammad was the one on the front line of battle calling them back. They had fled and turned their backs on the battle entirely! It was his extreme courage and bravery in battle that helped save the day and rally the remaining fighters, which is 100% in contradiction to the author’s hate narrative.

This caving in to cowardice by some of the Muslims at Badr is even more specifically noted in the Quran: When two parties from among you had determined that they should show cowardice, God was the guardian of them both, and in God should the believers trust. God had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force. (Quran 3:122-123) Note also how the Quran emphasizes here how the Meccans initially viewed the Muslims as “a contemptible little force” in comparison to their much larger and better equipped force. This is an important point given the parroted Islamophobe claim (discussed elsewhere herein) that the Muslims were committing an act of “terror” on the Meccan army at Badr. The reality is that the Meccans came purely as combatants to Medina to aggressively attack the Muslims! (Note: Badr is just outside of Medina, not Mecca.)

The Zionist Benefactors Behind the Islamophobia Industry Are an Ad Hominem Lie This is also typical of Muslims, who accuse their critics of being Zionists and/or paid agents of “the enemies of Islam.” Now there is nothing wrong in being a Zionist, considering the fact that the most despicable people are anti-Zionist. (Loc. 5863) I love this quote, not because it is relevant to the book’s topic or because it is yet another vacuous claim on Islam, but because it is such an obvious plug by the author to beg for Zionist money to fund his web site and “feature film”. You can see the author begging for this money on Twitter and his web site all the time for this delusional project. Here is one recent tweet here, where he says that he needs $10 million to make this blockbuster, and then another tweet where he asserts it will be a “best seller”, and then a third tweet where he says, “It will help millions to leave Islam”: https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463116172456521728 https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463116942199373824 https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463114033940283393 Note in the third tweet how his narcissism goes completely over the edge when he asserts his movie will be so important that, “It'll be a new ear [sic: “era”] in history”. And supposedly he is going to pull off this blockbuster success even though “the actors' faces will be masked and will be unrecognizable.” (per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/463118620986310656 ). His devotees believe him too. Per the tweet before the third tweet above (which you see when linking to it), one of them tells him, “The movie would get the Nobel Peace prize.” And she says in another tweet further down, “If it happens it would be revolution and renaissance al [sic] together”. High hopes indeed. Watch out, James Cameron, there’s a new boy coming to Tinseltown to show you how it’s really done!

83 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only No wonder the author is also defending so strongly the hate films put out by the Zionist Clarion Fund, since it would be the most likely funding source for his movie. All I can say is that the author really must hate his own family still in Iran to side grovelingly with Zionism and the racist nationalist state that would attack Iran in a heartbeat if it could muster enough “self-defense” propaganda cover to do so.

Even that “wiping Israel off the map” claim against Ahmadinejad was completely bogus, but that doesn’t stop the Zionists and the mainstream media from banging the war drums in repeating it, even today when Ahmadinejad has long been out of power. See this link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controve rsy It is now an irrefutable fact that the bulk of the money behind the Islamophobia industry comes from pro-Zionist lobby sources, with the express purpose of demonizing and dehumanizing Muslims to sustain the legitimacy of both apartheid and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in and around Israel. The author knows about this Zionist pig trough of cash quite well, with his “friend” Robert Spencer slopping up over $150k/yr. in salary alone from these Zionist terrorism-enablers, with much more in hate speech fees and propaganda publication royalties. The same applies to so many of the other high profile Islamophobes, who are raking in well over six figure base pay from Zionist donors. These indisputable facts are why it is so ironic that the author criticizes the allegation of “paid agents of ‘the enemies of Islam.’” These facts are simply beyond any refutation per the following research: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2011/08/26/10165/fear-inc/ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280501/horowitz-and-spencer-s-islamophobia-matt-duss http://www.cair.com/images/islamophobia/Legislating-Fear.pdf

Any Muslim-Majority Country That Is in Shambles is Caused by Islam This is so typical of Muslims who although they realize that their lives are a living hell and their countries are in shambles, blame themselves and their lack of adherence to “true Islam” for their miseries, when Islam is the source of most of their pains. (Loc. 5871) Yup, there's that bare-naked Islamdunnit claim again. That dimwitted guilt by association fallacy never gets old with Islamophobes. If there are “shambles” in Muslim-majority countries, then Islam must have done it. We’ll just forget all about those decades of Western-backed puppet dictatorships and all that shock and awe beforehand.

Muhammad Was a Tyrant in Medina, and Non-Muslims Were Excl. from “Ummah” Muhammad chose Yathrib as his compound, killed and expelled those who did not accept him and renamed it to Medinat ul-Nabi (Prophet’s town). In Medina, he corporally punished, publicly humiliated and assassinated anyone who defied his authority. Medinat ul Nabi was very much like Jonestown. Muhammad was the absolute authority. Any dissent was severely punished. Once a person entered that town, going back was virtually impossible. (Loc. 5925) 84 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only In a lawless society, like the Seventh Century Arabia, and especially in Medina where Muhammad ruled supreme, he could get away with anything. He represented God. His authority was supreme. (Loc. 6663) The fraternity in Islam does not extend to non-Muslims. In the treaty that Muhammad enforced on all the citizens of Medina, including non-Muslim Arabs and Jews, he wrote that his followers are one umma (community), to the exclusion of all men. (Loc. 7224) What utter nonsense. Even the most basic historical review debunks this idiocy. Muslims were a minority in Medina for a long time, without wealth or power. Muhammad was actually invited to Medina as an independent arbitrator and leader to help resolve intractable disputes among various tribes, which he did. Moreover, Medina was governed from the beginning not by autocratic control, but by the Constitution of Medina that Muhammad himself had drafted with his scribe. This was willingly endorsed by all the tribes of Medina long before the Muslims had any real power. This document is actually quite stunning in its democratic progressiveness. It would be considered a model of democracy and protection of religious diversity and freedom even to this day.

What I personally found most surprising is that the “Ummah” was actually referenced (and thus defined) in this document to include the whole community of Medina, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This contrasts with the incorrect connotation today, as parroted in the author’s false claim above, where “Ummah” (without qualification) only tends to mean the community of Muslims. This insular view is 100% wrong. Here is a link to some basic information on the Constitution of Medina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina http://www.constitutionofmadina.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Constitution-ofMadina_Articles.pdf In short, the author appears to be once again projecting his own hatred onto history to create a hate fantasy that never existed.

This also applies to Muslim fanatics, many of whom wrongly believe that some form of theocracy is the model for a Muslim-majority state, with the logical implication that non-Muslims must then have “Sharia law” theocratically shoved down their throats. In order to achieve this “utopia” (read dystopia), such a “Muslim theocracy” first and foremost would require the recognition of “professional Muslims” as clergy, for which there is no remote support in Islam whatsoever. In fact, the Quran condemns the glorification of any man being nearer to God based on title or having the alleged divine authority of an intercessor/interpreter.

There is only one model (other than the Quran itself) for an all-inclusive “Ummah” that history records, and that is per the earliest Ummah of the Constitution of Medina. Such an Ummah comprises a democratic federation of communities distinguished by faith, not by tribal affiliation, where individual accountability, equality and freedom of conscience and religion are emphasized above all. Hmm, why does such a Constitution sound so familiar?

85 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Islam Teaches Muslims to Fear People and Ideas Islam, like People’s Temple, teaches its members to fear anything and anyone outside of their faith and regards nonbelievers as “the enemy.” (Loc. 6484) What paranoid nonsense. The Quran tells Muslims to fear nothing but the punishment of God. Moreover, contrary to another popular delusion, even amongst Muslims, there is even no need to fear God when one is not committing sin or being tempted into doing so. The Arabic root (e.g. “taqwa” as the noun form) that is incorrectly translated as “fear” actually means consciousness of God – also implying connectedness with, and love of, God – which is the only true standard of righteousness for Muslims.

The only "enemies" of Muslims who are not physical aggressors are those who are paid to dehumanize Muslims as the "evil", "savage" enemy. These enemies are fought in the same way they fight us - with words.

Muslims Protesting Is Not Free Speech, but “Force” If a book or an article is published that they [Muslims] don’t like, they protest and try to force the “offender” to withdraw his publication and apologize. (Loc. 6502) What “force” is being invoked here? All free speech must be protected, even when it is free speech protesting the content of others' free speech. Are Muslims not allowed to protest?

Muhammad Brainwashed His Companions Using Physical Coercion Some analyses have compared his tactics to those involved in ‘brainwashing,’ for both include the control of communication, the manipulation of guilt, and power over people’s existence,[428] as well as isolation, an exacting regimen, physical pressure, and the use of confessions.[429] (Loc. 6515) Yup, the author shoots himself in the foot yet again! His Jim Jones parallel fails yet again, since such “brainwashing” coercion at the direction of Muhammad was not evident in the early Muslim community.

Yanking on an Opposing Leader’s Beard is a Friendly Arabic Custom Orwa, became more earnest, and in accordance to the Bedouin custom, stretched forth his hand to take hold of Muhammad's beard. This was a token of friendship and familiarity and not an act of disrespect. (Loc. 6529) What rubbish. Since when did grabbing and pulling on someone’s beard become a “token of friendship and familiarity”? Where's the source showing this was a sign of respect? Once again, the author provides absolutely no citation and just interpolates his own ridiculous opinion to further his hate narrative, even when it defies common sense. The reality is just the opposite based on my quick Google 86 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only search. Pulling on someone’s beard was actually considered a major indignity, even according to Biblical references.

Verbal Admonitions are Coercively Equivalent to Physical Slavery and Torture The cult leader has the same kind of control over his followers. Their threats are mostly given in the form of admonitions, divine retributions and call to repentance. (Loc. 6660) And yet again the author shoots himself in the foot with his delusional comparisons. There is zero comparison to the case studies presented, which all center entirely on physical coercion, slavery, and violent abuse.

Without faith, those who reject Islam are logically immune to any admonitions or warnings of divine retributions. No amount of warning will ever wake up the conscience of those who have already rejected God or choose to do so. I always find it cute, though, how non-Muslims express so much objection and fear of a Muslim hell that they categorically reject. How could something they view as nothing more than a dark fairy tale coerce and control them?

By contrast, those physically bound and abused have no such choice and will be quite pliable to manipulation. Such was the critical variable of coercion in the cult case studies presented: physical slavery and physical abuse. The author’s entire analogy is therefore laughably absurd.

Killing Any “Unbeliever” is an Automatic Ticket to Paradise Muslims are promised incommensurable rewards when they kill non-believers (those who are not of their kind). Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter, fight in the Cause of Allâh; and whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward. (Q.4:74) (Loc. 6801) Uh, so where does it say merely killing "unbelievers" leads to heaven here? I seem to have missed the “punch” line! The Quran quote is a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the author’s point.

Islam is Nothing but “Infernophobia” The main shackle that keeps Muslims in Islam is fear – fear of Allah, fear of the punishment in the grave and a hell that Muhammad relished describing in sanguinary detail. (Loc. 6849) If phobia is an irrational fear, Islam is nothing but infernophobia. (Loc. 6956) Not at all. When we sin, we are disconnected from God consciousness, and therefore from the fear of God as well. God consciousness would therefore seem to be a prerequisite cause for fear of God, but ironically it is not. When we are most conscious of God, we don't desire sin. That is not only my consistent personal experience, but the rationally logical response as well.

87 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only The Only Sure Way to Paradise is to Hate, Fight and Kill “Unbelievers” That is why “moderate Islam” is a charade. You can’t believe in the Quran and remain moderate.

Once you believe in Muhammad’s hell you’ll do anything to avoid it and the only sure way, according to that insane prophet is to hate, to fight and to kill the unbelievers. (Loc. 6882) Uh, no. But if you are that determined and “hell-bent” on going to hell, then committing violent injustice is exactly what you should do!! I must say, reviewing this book is a lot more fun than I thought it would be. Observing someone so detached from reality is almost like watching a movie in real life, except without any suspension of disbelief required.

The Highest Form of Worship in Islam is Murdering “Unbelievers” Take the doctrine of Jihad. Muslims are told that the highest form of worship is waging war for the sake of God and murdering those who don’t believe. (Loc. 6951) Spoken like a true brainwashed terrorist, and once again with zero factual support (hint: because it does not exist!). The highest form of piety, per the Quran, is simply God consciousness.

Being willing to die for a just cause – such as freedom, democracy, and stopping persecution and oppression – is not worship, but what Americans call “the ultimate sacrifice.” That same honorific description applies in Islam, because that is exactly what it is. If the author has a problem with such honorable sacrifice, then perhaps he should join the Westboro Baptist Church in slandering soldiers and their families at military funerals. After all, what’s a little more anti-American hate on top of all the antiAmerican and anti-Constitutional hate he has already expressed?

Per the Author, I am a Beast Who Cannot Reason, Nowhere Near Like He Can But Muslims’ ability to reason is crippled. What distinguishes humans from beasts is their ability to reason. Muslims have abdicated that ability. (Loc. 6952) Well, based on my review of the author’s book, I’d say that his theory is not working out so well thus far.

Perhaps the author will have better luck waking up his ability to recognize reason once the debate starts.

Muslims Must Advocate Unjust Violence to Conform with Their Community Then there is the conformity factor. The absurd, violent, and evil teachings of the Quran are confirmed by all Muslims, and if one wants to belong to that community, one must conform.

(Loc. 6957) If that bald premise were true, then why have I never heard one Muslim preaching any advocacy of unjust violence in my entire life with the exception of obscure foreign YouTube videos? Also, why would or should any pious Muslim conform to mere men when he is commanded by God to follow only the message of the Quran?

88 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only I actually love this propaganda myth, since it is so delicious to challenge and so easy to squash like a little bug. Let me illustrate. We now have a massive random population of very accessible, educated and devout Muslims right at our fingertips on the Internet, on this place called “Twitter”. Perhaps the author has heard of it – oh yeah, he’s already on it! If the conformist view of Islam is one of advocating and devoutly believing in what non-Muslims would classify as “unjust violence” against them, then where exactly are all the Muslims propagating this evil message of hate?

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Muslims on Twitter today. All I have asked for – and continue to ask for – is for someone to show me just five of these Muslims advocating unjust violence against non-Muslims so that I can gleefully shred them in a debate. I would love to do that, since focusing only on Islamophobes promoting this hate message is frankly mind-numbing. It’s like talking to the same dumbass parrot over, and over, and over again. Why would finding such a miniscule number of jeehawdists be so difficult if the prevalent, conformist view being enforced on Muslims is one of unjust jeehawdist violence against non-Muslims? Again, WHY? And where are all these phantom masses of evil Muslims hiding and hanging out? If they are not prevalent on the public Internet, including the most popular mass communication platform on the planet (Twitter), does this mean that they are all on the invisible TaqiyyaNet? What is so shockingly hilarious with this in-your-face challenge is that it seems too difficult for Islamophobes to find even ONE Muslim openly advocating unjust violence on Twitter. On the other hand, the grand, spectacular irony is that there is absolutely no shortage of genocidal freaks on Twitter advocating for the “eradication of Islam” and Muslims. The pathetic, drooling idiots I have challenged so far could not even come up with one Muslim – NOT ONE – advocating any evil remotely similar for nonMuslims! I have no doubt that there must be at least some freaks on the Muslim side out there too.

However, the fact that Islamophobes have so far not even come up with one for me to debate proves how absurd the author’s conformist theory really is.

So that is challenge #1 to crush the author’s silly theory, which I formally issue to him now as well. Now for challenge #2. I challenge the author to set up a dummy Muslim Twitter ID and to test propagate the same messages of hate and unjust violence that he has in his book while invoking Islam as his inspiration and ideological paradigm. Heck, this challenge is incredibly easy. He just has to copy and paste his own words right out of his book, articles, etc. To put some statistical significance behind the results, he should send his messages of persuasion directly to 100 leading and knowledgeable Muslims (the more popular and respected among Muslims the better due to the author’s “conformist” claim) and also to 100 random Muslims (who have at least 500 tweets to their name to provide some assurance that they are real). Then we will all be able to see just how much positive reception he gets on those hate messages by looking at the dummy ID’s Twitter timeline after the fact. I will then proceed to laugh in his face when nearly every Muslim will treat him like the wacked-out loon that he truly is.

Hint: I already know what the results to challenge #2 will be, since I have seen so many subtle examples of this myself. Even when a Muslim might try to justify violence in public forums that is clearly unjust without advocating it himself, the only conformist pressure that I ever see is other Muslims pouncing on that false argument (tacitly supporting clear injustice) like a dog on a bone. Yet the author delusionally claims otherwise.

89 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Islam is a Cult Based on Loyalty to a Man Who Advocated Evil Cultists develop a misplaced sense of loyalty towards their leader. You are not free until you realize that the person towards whom you feel loyalty has been your captor, an evil soul who deserves, not your sympathy, but you scorn. (Loc. 7018) Again, the cult analogy is absurd. Muslims today owe no loyalty to any man – just to God via the message of the Quran. So if the Quran advocates only justice, not injustice, then where exactly is there a "cult" problem? Isn’t justice always an anti-cult, good thing?

Physical Slavery and Torture Case Studies Are Analogous to the Muslim Community Psychologist Chris Hatcher who was called to testify for the prosecutor in the case of Hooker explained to the jury how mind-control works. He addressed the dynamics of sadomasochism, and the dominant and submissive personalities involved—particularly the excitement factor for the "master" in getting someone to submit to his whims. Hatcher then talked about how the effects of sudden kidnapping, death threats, being housed in a dark tomb that disturbed daylight patterns, the physical abuse, the loss of control over necessary bodily functions, and the lack of communication were collectively effective in breaking down Coleen's will. In other words, her values, her identity, and her whole way of looking at the world had been changed. (Loc. 7026) Again, the cult comparison analogy utterly fails. ALL of these oppressive forces in this case study were carried out via physical abuse, physical imprisonment, physical slavery, and physical control. The analogy with Islam is therefore absolutely absurd. There is not even a clergy or central authority in Islam to carry out such mass physical coercion even if Islam hypothetically called for it. The analogy could only be relevant to individual Muslims who are caught under the psychological and physical influence of another human being misleading them, not Islam (the Quran). Muslims are commanded never to be the ideological or physical slave of any man, so anyone who does so, or who tries to enslave the mind of another human being, is someone who is categorically rejecting Islam, not following it.

But again, if the objective here is not truth, or even really “truth”, but making a shocking, over-the-top feature film, then just roll with it. This Hannibal Lecter shtick will sell movie tickets like hell-fired hotcakes.

Rumi Was an Idiot, Which Makes Him a Great Scholar of Islam to Quote Rumi mocked the rationalists and said they stand on “wooden legs.” (Loc. 7416) Muslims are encouraged to lose their identity and accept their nothingness. Rumi says, “For how long will you be concerned about clothing? Abandon your body so you won’t need clothing.” This is the highest expression of spirituality for a Muslim. (Loc. 7049) Please excuse the author here while he smokes some serious mystic Rumi weed. The author likes Rumi.

And he loves to invoke Rumi as a reputable source, mainly because Rumi is as brazenly irrational (per his 90 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only own words!) as the author is. I think it’s something about the joy of running around bare naked, howling against nothingness.

Circular Terrorist Logic Actually Makes Sense The only certainty that Muslims have for salvation is when they take part in jihad and when they becomes a martyr. (Loc. 7086) I always find it so amusing how Islamophobes think exactly like fanatical terrorists. The endless logical fallacies and the uncanny ability to interpret “up” as “down” and “left” as “right” are simply amazing to me. In this case, the terrorist logic is based on a classic “begging the question” fallacy, which is a form of circular logic.

By all scholarly accounts and per the Quran, becoming a martyr is entirely dependent on one's intention for why one is fighting. If one fights in part for wealth or greed or mere revenge, then these motives will most certainly not qualify one for salvation, and they will more likely negate any intention present that may be sincerely selfless in nature. Therefore, no one can ever be certain of “martyr” status simply by checking the boxes of 1) participating in “jihad” and 2) dying in “jihad”.

By contrast, terrorist logic, which the author so aptly demonstrates in his own thinking, does make this laughable check-the-box claim. Such terrorist logic is based on the premise that “martyr” = salvation = death during jihad. Therefore, anyone dying during jihad must be saved because they are a martyr.

This, of course, is nothing but dimwitted, dumbass circular logic based on an erroneous tautological conflation in terminology.

But let’s take a big step back from all this tail chasing logic. Where exactly is the threat of such irrational “jihad” on non-Muslims anyway, beyond isolated criminal acts (among tens of thousands of “non-jihad” violent attacks each year in the U.S. alone)? As far as I know, all five of the major “schools of thought” and all Muslim majority countries reject both this irrational terrorist logic and the conducting of any jihad that causes unjust violence. So, once again, the worldwide “stealth jihad” claim logically must rely on a secret and invisible (“taqiyya-cloaked”?) Moozlamic Empire run out of a secret Moozlamic HQ. Whoa, those Moozlims must be smart.

Muslims Viciously Attack Those Like the Author “Who Try to Help Them” Muslims are the primary victims of Islam, and yet few of them recognize it. They are defensive of it and viciously attack those who try to help them. (Loc. 7090) Attack? Why? That makes absolutely no sense. Ridicule is the only logical response to propaganda based on irrational arguments from the willfully ignorant. Also, it’s just plain fun! Why stress over someone else’s hate “trying to help me”? Be entertained by it.

91 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Operated a Stealth Muslim Intelligence Agency Muhammad did the same. He had spies everywhere and when tipped off, he would claim “Gabriel informed me…” (Loc. 5770) Uh, where is the evidence of such spies? None given, but it certainly sounds quite intriguing. This is the stuff of “feature films”, so just roll with it. Tom Cruise might even be interested in auditioning for this spy role. He’s having trouble filling his movie schedule these days. He could also provide endless hours of hate fun for the author while he debates him about Scientology during coffee and bio breaks.

Muhammad’s Stealth Intelligence Agents Were Ruthless Even to Believers Those who could see the problem did not dare to talk about it. The Immigrants could not go back. No one could complain. Anyone could be an informer. They could be assassinated as there was no dearth of zealot believers who would happily kill an uppity fellow believer. (Loc. 6123) Again, no backup was provided for this wild claim. It appears to be more projection-induced paranoia from the author’s life and trauma in Iran contradicting obvious historical facts from the early Muslim community.

Muhammad’s Stealth Intelligence Agents Were Everywhere, Spying on Believers Too He [Muhammad] had spies everywhere. They posed as his detractors and brought news from places he wanted to ambush. So paranoid was he that he even encouraged his believers to spy on each other. Muslims do this to this day. (Loc. 2899) Again, there is zero backup provided for these absurd claims, here and in this whole section. However, making up facts as you go to chop and change historical reality certainly helps when trying to fit a square peg into a deep, dark, round hole of paranoid cult mythology.

Nevertheless, if the author is that concerned about spying on an enemy during war becoming wildly exaggerated into a cult practice, then the author should really be directing his histrionic, antisurveillance cult invective towards the United States government, first and foremost. They don’t just spy on an enemy during war. They spy on everyone, all the time, 24X7X365, war or no war, even on fellow innocent Americans. Now that would be a much better target of the author’s invective against paranoid autocrats with excessive power. And he would actually have no shortage of facts to back his claim up – unlike here, where he has cited absolutely none.

Jihad is a Pillar of Islam, and Killing is Always Evil Jihad is a pillar of Islam and any Muslim who disagrees with it is not a Muslim anymore. The term “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. No one can be moderate and subscribe to an ideology that prescribes killing. (Loc. 6228) 92 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only No, jihad is not a pillar of Islam according to any mainstream sect of Muslims. Jihad is not even uniquely “Islamic”. The Quran even describes the actions of pagans with the JHD root word. So how can pagans practice “a pillar of Islam”? Whoops.

And here we go again with the juvenile trope of conflating all violence with injustice. In all kinds of scenarios that I could come up with, NOT responding with violence is a form of grave injustice if such violence is for the purpose of stopping grave injustice from continuing. “Prescribing killing” is only deemed wrong under all scenarios according to pacifists.

However, pacifists advocate an irrational ideology of provable injustice and immorality under such scenarios (e.g., not stopping a mass murder in progress because violent intervention would be “wrong”).

The author is a demonstrable hypocrite in advocating this staunchly pro-pacifist position, since even according to his own personal ideology he prescribes violence to fight against violence (as quoted above). Oh, the joys of humiliating Islamophobes with their own words!

Islam is Anti-Democratic Because a 21st Century Picket Sign Says So Islam is also against liberty, equality, and fraternity. In their demonstrations in Europe, Muslims carry placards that read “Freedom Go to Hell” and “Democracy is Hypocrisy”. (Loc. 7212) Right. And according to Christianity, “God Hates America”, “God Hates Fags”, etc. Also according to Christianity, Christians should “Thank God for IEDs”, “Thank God for 9/11”, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, etc.

STOP LAUGHING AT ME – I CAN PROVE IT. See, lookie right here – I smart like Ali Sina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church https://www.google.com/search?q=westboro+baptist+church+picket+signs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source= univ&sa=X&ei=AbtWU7KNDcK2yAHoqoCwDw&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=562 I looked and looked for Muslim hate groups in the U.S. in order to find out who could make up such nasty (photoshopped?) picket signs against freedom and democracy, but I could not find even one.

Maybe Ali Sina is smarter than me after all, since hating is apparently part of Islam, which means there must be all kinds of Muslim hate groups actively operating in North America. After all, there are literally millions of Muslims that live there. All I could find, though, was this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center _as_hate_groups There were no prominent Muslim hate groups listed here that I could see, but it did show a whole whackload of pro-“Christian” hate groups, along with no less than 29 anti-Muslim and anti-Islam hate groups, like these:    

Faith Freedom Atlas Shrugs (a blog by Pamela Geller) Bare Naked Islam Jihad Watch 93

Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only  

Political Islam Stop Islamization of America (SIOA)

Do these count? I dumb. Ali Sina smart. Ali Sina will tell us. And why are these silly people saying “Faith and Freedom” represent hate? How could that be?

“Democracy” Didn’t Even Exist in “Muslim Languages” until the 1890s There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. (Loc. 7214) Uh, try "shura", "ijma", etc., all recognized by Islam and from the seventh century or prior. Here’s some light introductory reading for the ignorant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura http://studies.aljazeera.net/ResourceGallery/media/Documents/2013/3/5/201335103758486734Maria na%20Malinova.pdf

A Stealth Moozlamic Force is Discouraging Individualism Amongst Muslims Fascism and Islam discourage individualism and promote the state/caliphate. (Loc. 7252) Uh, so where exactly is this Islamic Caliphate and Islamic State on planet Earth, and what alien technology have they acquired to stop individualism in Muslims remotely and to promote their invisible empire? Enquiring Muslims want to know. I’m sorry, I don’t subscribe to that esteemed tabloid publication, so the author will just have to fill me in on all the juicy gossip and details. I think my cerebral anti-individualism chip is broken, by the way. Maybe they need to fix it.

The Crusades Was a Defensive War Inspired by Jihad, as Was the Inquisition There is no justification in the Bible, for the crusades or for the Inquisition. They were inspired

by Jihad and Mihna. Mihna means Inquisition. It was devised by Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun in 833 CE to impose his theological views on his subjects. (Loc. 7342) What! All the historians got it wrong all this time? You mean the Crusades was purely a defensive war, and all that torturing of Christian heretics was done in the name of “Jihad”? Whoa – this dude is SMART. That means he might even be onto our super-secret Moozlamic tech. -- you know, where Moozlims remote controlled all the medieval Church fathers as our robot "dhimmis" just so that Christians could be commanded to kill off other Moozlims seeking death. Remember, as the author lays it straight in his book, death is the ultimate goal for those dastardly Moozlims.

94 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Just About Every Secret Evil Society was Inspired by Islam Secret societies, like the Shriners, the Rosicrucian, the Freemason, the Illuminati, and the Mafia were inspired by Islam and owe their organizational structure to the Order of Assassins, founded

by Hassan Sabbah in the 11th century. (Loc. 7350) I retract my disrespectful “SMART” comment. The author has now graduated to Super-Genius status. I mean, he has literally exposed the secret sauce of evil itself here; and it is so simple, a child could get it: IslamdunnitALL. He’s like the Colonel Sanders of Truthological cuisine. Even the Illuminati can’t hide from his shining light. And if anyone should be afraid of his Truthological wrath, it’s not him – oh, no – but rather the Order of the Assassins. Those wimps have no idea who they are dealing with here. Why did we ever doubt our Messiah of “truth” when he compels us with such powerful conclusions?

The Mafia Owes Its Existence to Islam The Mafia also owes its existence to Islam. Muslims conquered Sicily and Malta in 902 and ruled the Islands until 1061, when they were evicted following the Norman Conquest, the local gangsters moved in to fill their gap. (Loc. 7402) All totalitarian regimes, all fascistic forms of government, all systems that disregard the Golden Rule and use ideology as a tool for domination are either directly or indirectly, influenced by Islam. (Loc. 7406) Daggone, this guy is truly a Super-Genius (and, yes, I capitalized that on purpose again – he deserves it!).

Just when I thought he had explained it all to our small and feeble minds, he comes up with yet another undeniable epiphany. So, in essence, when it comes to all organized evil across the entire planet Earth, IslamdunnitALL. Brilliant!

We anxiously await the final revelation from our Messiah of “truth”. This revelation represents the final frontier in our understanding of the source of all evil. He will finally reveal, and enlighten us, how that Muhammad dude got his hands on a time machine to stir up all the rest of the hell on planet Earth before he was even born!

The Church Oppression of the Dark Ages Was Actually Caused by Islam Too Thanks to Islamic ideas imported to Europe, the Universal Church assumed temporal powers and put a halt on science and reason. Enlightenment was stalled for one thousand years. (Loc. 7410) NO WAY!! You mean this Muhammad dude single-handedly caused the Dark Ages too, including the “one thousand years” “halt on science and reason” in the Christian world? And yet at the same time in Muslim-majority countries science and rational progress flourished in what most call the Golden Age of Islam? No doubt this was just a grand taqiyya plot. The way the author wields his tautological paradoxes is outrageously ingenious. I am not even sure I am worthy to read such profound revelation.

95 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad Worship (“Islam”) Inspired the Founding of the Order of Assassins Pir Roshan preached the transmigration of souls and the representation of God through individuals. This was the core of the doctrine of Hassan Sabbah [founder of the Order of Assassins]. Sabbah understood that the essence of Islam was the glorification of one man, and that God was Muhammad’s tool to dominate the unenlightened. (Loc. 7355) They were to believe that the leader is the manifestation of God. But the leader knew that all devotions are to him and God is a pretext, an instrument to mobilize the masses and through them gain power. (Loc. 7358) The author is literally obsessed with Muhammad-worship, i.e., Muhammadism. The religion that Muslims actually follow is called Islam. Yes, we got the point about how you were brainwashed as a child to believe that Islam is about glorifying and worshipping Muhammad, but get over it already. For the rest of us, your obsession is frankly getting boring and quite tedious.

Thuggees Were Etymologists and Murdered Because “Taqiyya” Sounds Like “Thuggee” The word ‘thug’ is believed to come from the Sanskrit root Sthag, to conceal. Curiously, the Arabic word taqiya sounds the same as Thuggee and it also means the same – to conceal. (Loc. 7386) These titles are Arabic, which implies that the root of Thuggee is in Islam. (Loc. 7401) Wow, now that's what I call a desperate association fallacy speculation, especially when the author doesn’t even know Arabic and hasn’t done a lick of research on the Arabic etymology of the word “taqiyya”. It’s great to see, though, that the author is publicly conceding that “taqiyya” doesn’t mean to lie. Whoops.

Oh, and just one more minor point – even if the author can etymologically link “Thuggee” with “taqiyya” beyond his already super-strong evidence that these two words “sound the same” [*chuckle*], that’s not making any relevant point at all. He still has to explain how he can conclude that “the root of Thuggee is in Islam” when the root of “taqiyya” doesn’t even exist in the whole Quran either!

Apparently, Some Guy Named Bollas Christopher Channels Muhammad’s Thoughts Like Muhammad, Mussolini perceived women's primary role as child-bearers, while men are to be warriors. He said, "war is to man is what maternity is to the woman."[453] (Loc. 7258) Dude, your reefer supplier is feeding you some bad stuff (probably from Moozlamic Afghanistan again).

Some guy named Bollas Christopher actually said that, per your own footnote 453. At least you didn’t mention this time that Mussolini was inspired in his ideological outlook by Bollas Christopher, who published that comment in 1993. Whew, now THAT would have been embarrassing. But wait, didn’t you miss something? “Mussolini” actually sounds the same as “Moozlamic”! Am I a great student of your logic, or what?

96 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only XI.

A SAMPLING OF SOME VERY UNHINGED, HILARIOUS CLAIMS

In addition to the sampling of bald, unsupported claims above, the author made even wilder, unhinged claims that are frankly hilarious. Unlike the “unsupported” claims, these claims usually have a semblance of “factual support” behind them, but that term is used quite generously. Some may not have really any “factual support”, but they are so unhinged and hilarious that I included them here anyway. Here is a sampling of the ones where the author appears to be auditioning for comedy night at his local community college:

Stealth Moozlamic Baddies Are Stopping Research on Islam and Muhammad Scholarship and research on the matter is limited precisely because Muslims have not and will not permit objective inquiry into the Quran or the life of Muhammad. (Loc. 1744) This “free speech victimhood” card of Islamophobes – especially of the well-funded propagandists – is perhaps the most hilariously ironic claim they continually make. Oh, those poor “counterjihadist” babies – they’re “being silenced” by those Moozlamic baddies “bullying” them with free speech (i.e., “terrorism”, since Moozlamic “savages” only believe in free speech as a component of terrorism).

The reality, of course, is that it has literally been open season on Muslims and Islam for decades now, where vile “free speech” hatred is expressed against Islam and Muhammad everywhere, nonstop, and with absolute impunity. The fact that the author is asserting this embarrassing claim in this book has to be the ultimate in hypocrisy – not to mention a trumpeting of sheer idiocy while wearing a bright pink polka-dot dunce cap. There is a massive amount of non-Muslim scholarship and research on Islam and Muhammad, and it is avidly continuing to this day without any substantive protest by Muslims. For the vast majority of Muslims, they simply don’t care, just like Christians generally don’t care what research is done on Christianity.

The much bigger question, though, that the author needs to answer to make his claim credible is this: Who exactly is trying to stop this scholarship and research in any real way? Is there a secret Moozlamic jeehawd force perhaps? The author’s paranoid delusions are absolutely hysterical. But wait, this clown show is just beginning. There’s a lot more to come below.

Ayatollah Khomeini is a Scholar and an Official Spokesperson for Islam Those who know Islam better know that violence is part of it. Khomeini knew Islam well. He wrote. “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! … Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword. People cannot be made obedient except with the sword![465] (Loc. 7520) The author lamented in the previous quote about the lack of scholarship on Islam and Muhammad, so what does he do here? He quotes the great ‘scholar’ (and oppressive Iranian dictator) Ayatollah Khomeini for his scholarly opinion!

97 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only But look at what other propaganda trick and logical fallacy the author highlights in this quote: a false dichotomy. He demonstrates a classic case of conflating violence with injustice. Only idiots are persuaded by such false dichotomies. Violence is inherently amoral without context and can be the cause of both injustice and justice, depending on whether the universal principles of the Just War Doctrine are upheld or not.

Ultimately, what we are witnessing here is just more paranoid delusion about what Islam represents projecting from the bogeyman in the author’s own head. The author’s childhood trauma stands naked before us once again, this time via an extremely embarrassing claim. Can you say “Iranian Revolution”, or what?

The Ayatollah Khomeini’s Views are Shared by ALL Muslim Scholars Khomeini’s views are based on Islamic scriptures and are shared by all Muslim scholars. When those who are “less Muslim” decide to become good Muslims, they become jihadi terrorists.

(Loc. 7524) This is an absolutely delicious quote, since it is so easily proven as 100% wrong. It is also straight from the same Iranian Revolution bogeyman in the author’s subconscious mind. The author completely humiliates himself by wildly claiming that “all Muslim scholars" share the Ayatollah Khomeini’s views.

What a joke. It is at times like this that he sounds like a child having a tantrum in the crazed hope that it will somehow make his argument more persuasive. Uh, no it doesn’t. But it certainly makes the clown show a lot more entertaining. I love it.

Muslims Are Establishing a Worldwide Dictatorship to Enslave People and Science Islam is incompatible with democracy. It is a warring creed. Muslims take advantage of democracy to promote their cult in order to destroy it. They want to establish a worldwide dictatorship. (Loc. 201) If we adopt a submissive peaceful posture vis-à-vis Muslims, they will be emboldened and we lose. We lose our freedom, our democracy, our civilization and everything humanity has achieved since Enlightenment. Science will be enslaved by an obscurantist religion and the world will sink in the quagmire of Talibanization. (Loc. 7765) Ah yes, the secret Moozlamic Empire operating out of the secret Moozlamic HQ is scheming right now as a credible threat “to establish a worldwide dictatorship”. Of course it must be true. It’s right there in the Quran, you know that verse that commands Muslims to set up the “Caliphate” to take over the world. Well, I’m sure it’s there somewhere. It’s got to be, probably right next to the verse that says “democracy is evil”.

But forget the doctrine or lack thereof. I’m just trying to figure out which of the 50+ Muslim majority countries has even offered or advocated to join with other countries in this grand Caliphate. I can’t seem to find even one. Also, who would it be ruled by – Shias, Sunnis, Sufis, Malikis, Wahhabis/Salafis or another (sub)group? And who will be the Caliph over it all - Barack Hussein Obama? Yeah, that’s it.

98 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Shhhh - He’s our secret Moozlamic leader. All his drone strikes killing innocent Muslims is really just taqiyya.

The Problem with Islamic Countries is Islam The diagnosis is simple. The problem with Islamic countries is Islam. The more a country becomes Islamic the more backward it becomes. (Loc. 7506) No. Clearly the more anti-Islamic, the more intellectually backward and irrational one is. The only argument presented here is a pure association fallacy. Moreover, it is not even a proper association, since the bulk of the population cannot even read the Quran. They follow their politically-sponsored scholars, not the Quran - and, therefore, not Islam.

Muhammad Belonged to Nobility and Refused to Attend the Local School Signs of schizotypal personality disorder in adolescence may begin as gravitation towards solitary activity or high level of social anxiety. The child may be an underperformer or appear socially out-of-step with peers. This is very much true about Muhammad who despite belonging to nobility, did not attend school and remained illiterate. (Loc. 4091) Muhammad was an orphan raised in the desert far outside the city, not in the luxurious lap of “nobility” in some thriving academic hub of Arabia. Schools? Even within Mecca itself, there is no evidence of any formal schools in existence per hadiths. So how could Muhammad’s lack of formal schooling be some sort of evidence of his “anti-social” behavior in avoiding schools he had absolutely no access to? What laughable nonsense.

A Cartoon Footprint Proves Muhammad had Acromegaly A picture is worth a thousand words [in “proving” Muhammad’s acromegaly]. (Loc. 4463) Yes, indeed, it is. I would love to copy the picture in here so that others could see those “thousand words” for themselves. But let me just say that it is more aptly described as one word repeated a thousand times over, which is the same word on the author’s forehead: SUCKER. It is a picture of Muhammad’s alleged physical footprint, which is likely what prompted the author to go down his silly acromegaly path to begin with. It can best be described as a cartoonish imprint that bears very little resemblance to any real human footprint. In other words, it is completely bogus. Even if acromegaly were assumed, the proportions are still way off, the toes are almost all at the same vertical level instead of sloping diagonally like toes on a real foot, and the arch of the foot is grossly misplaced in the middle instead of towards the front of the foot. If his foot arch were abnormally raised due to acromegaly (as the author embarrassingly claimed), then the arch would be much thinner in the middle too, instead of actually being wider.

Finally, there is absolutely zero credible piece of evidence backing up the authenticity of this footprint, and the author concedes this by not even attempting to provide one. Somebody created a cartoon 99 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only footprint, and then some other idolatrous idiot probably said that it must be Muhammad’s footprint simply because it was larger than real life to him. That’s how Occam’s razor would explain it, and that’s also how we know the bulk of this bogus religious paraphernalia is created in all religious traditions. But that’s not how our Messiah of “truth” sees it. He clearly has a much more vivid imagination and an irresistible desire for fantasy to fulfill. The author once again demonstrates what a brainwashed schizophrenic sucker he is in believing anything and everything that casts a negative light on Muhammad or Islam, no matter how outlandish or absurd. If it supports his hate narrative, then he becomes like a slavish propaganda sponge, soaking it all up with blind zealotry. Every last hate Kool-Aid drop.

Muhammad Was Filled With Rage Even as an Infant …when asked for proof she said, ‘The bite you gave me in my back when I carried you at my hip.’”[131] Muhammad recognized the mark and stretched out his robe for her to sit on and treated her kindly. Children bite when frustrated and to show their rage. It is obvious that Muhammad felt the deprivation of love at a very young age. (Loc. 2097) Again, the hate narrative here is that Muhammad was filled with “rage” even since infancy, so that must have been the cause of the bite, with of course zero factual or logical backup for this wild claim. It is based on nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy, quite possibly based on the author’s projection of his own love-deprived childhood. Clearly, the author has also not spent much time with children, especially teething ones. I don’t blame children for wanting to avoid him and his constant seething of hate, but it might definitely do him some good to be around children once in a while.

Muhammad Was High on Euphoric, Hallucinogenic, Narcotic Gases in the Cave of Hira It is likely that the cave Hira may have contained euphoric gasses, which made Muhammad want to spend most of his time there. Although he had several epileptic trances, since his childhood, we must not discard the possibility that Cave Hira may have trapped hallucinogenic vapors that triggered his visions. (Loc. 4239) This speculation is wildly hilarious, and just shows how desperate this author is to take advantage of the ignorant. The “cave” of Hira is not even a cave, but just an open, sheltered nook in rocks at the top of a small mountain! I know – I’ve been there myself. It is only enough sheltered space for one or two persons, that's all. This nook is essentially wide open to the outside air, which is constantly circulating within it, with no “trapped” air at all – let alone “trapped hallucinogenic vapors”! And there are no cracks in the walls or floor for gases to be released into this well ventilated space, and it is not remotely “enclosed” enough to allow for the growth of any differentiated “fungi “or “microbial agents”, as the author also wildly speculates. Besides how would it even make sense for subterranean gases (a.k.a. the “Earth’s narcotic juices”, per the author’s stilted metaphor) to leak through the rock of an entire nonvolcanic mountain and come out the very top? Does the author even bother to think, or to apply a modicum of common sense?

100 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Khadija Was a Weak and Pathetic Co-Dependant of Muhammad Khadijah can be classified as ‘vicarious co-dependent.’ Vaknin says, “Vicarious co-dependents live through others. They ‘sacrifice’ themselves in order to glory in the accomplishments of their chosen targets. They subsist on reflected light, on second-hand applause, and on derivative achievements. They have no personal history, having suspended their wishes, preferences, and dreams in favor of another's.”[148] (Loc. 2290) Uh, so how does Khadija being so helplessly co-dependent fit exactly with her being an extremely successful merchant businesswoman all on her own, long before meeting Muhammad? Also, how much sense does it make for her to feel such co-dependence on a man who is her employee and 15 years her junior? I must say, I never expected such entertainment while reading this book. What a pleasant surprise.

Muhammad Was Suffocated and Anxious in the Company of Others People with schizoid personality are either incapable of initiating and maintaining a personal relationship or find themselves suffocated and anxious in the company of others. They retreat into their inner worlds. If they seek relationship it’s for security.[279] (Loc. 4080) Like the previous Khadija example, here is yet another psychobabble armchair diagnosis from the author that flagrantly contradicts very well known facts. The symptoms described here are the exact opposite of Muhammad’s personality per the historical record, especially during his prophetic career. Any prophet or leader who had such debilitating personality disorders as above could not possibly be anything but an utter failure. Yet Muhammad was anything but. He was arguably the most successful leader in history, and he inspired intense, genuine loyalty in his companions as a result of his constant and amicable personal relationships with a vast number of people in the community, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Muhammad Was Bipolar Because He Might Have Had Fluctuating Desires to Fast Ibn Sa’d reports a hadith that fits the bill [of bipolar disorder]. He writes: “Sometimes the Prophet used to fast so much, as if he did not want to end it, and sometimes he would not fast for so long that one thought he did not want to fast at all.”[285] (Loc. 4203) If this common human behavior is supposed to be evidence of bipolar disorder, then according to such hyperbolic logic, only robots would not be “bipolar”, since only robots would not have fluctuating desires to fast or to do other burdensome tasks. Moreover, this hadith is not based on Muhammad’s attestation at all, but on a mere perception of Muhammad’s desire to fast, which could have been 100% wrong.

101 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Walking With Vigor Implies Catatonic Paranoid Schizophrenic Mental Stupor As for [Muhammad’s] catatonic behavior [symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia], a syndrome characterized by muscular rigidity and mental stupor, it is enough to quote his cousin Ali, who said, “When he walked he would lift his feet with vigor, as if walking up a slope. When he turned towards a person he would turn with his entire body.”[283] (Loc. 4141) Wow, that title is a Big Mac mouthful of propaganda, but that is what the author said. Oh my, the author’s armchair physician clown show just does not stop. Ironically, very severe delusions are required to connect such innocuous and natural human demeanor to the severe diagnoses of “catatonic behavior” and “paranoid schizophrenia”. Also, how exactly is moving with deliberate “vigor” characteristic of “mental stupor”? Well, let’s just chalk that one up as another unexplained mystery, right up there with crop circles. The Messiah of “truth” said it, so the contradiction must be an illusion.

Those Who Like Perfume and Get a Headache Have Acromegaly and Excessively Stink This excessive preoccupation with perfume suggests that Muhammad was wary of his bad odor and did his best to mask it. Another symptom of acromegaly is headache, which Muhammad tried to alleviate with cupping.[301] (Loc. 4385) So those who like perfume and might have a headache even once or twice in their lives is evidence of acromegaly? Well, if the Messiah of “truth” said it, then it must be right.

A Headache in Extended Desert Heat is a Sign of Acromegaly, Not Dehydration [As further evidence of Muhammad’s acromegaly], “The Prophet was cupped on his head for an ailment he was suffering from while he was in a state of Ihram (dresses for hajj) at a water place called Lahl Jamal. Ibn 'Abbas further said: Allâh’s Apostle was cupped on his head for unilateral headache while he was in a state of Ihram.” (Loc. 4387) Hajji is physically very difficult, with dehydration the most common problem in the desert, especially for those who sweat more profusely. The key symptom of dehydration is a headache. The author likes to invoke Occam's razor, so apparently acromegaly as the cause of a common headache during a desert fast is the simplest, most persuasive, and most parsimonious explanation possible. OK - Got it.

Muhammad Had a Humpback from Acromegaly [T]hus resulting in development of kyphosis, an abnormal, convex curvature of the spine, with a resultant bulge at the upper back. This is why he had a large back and shoulder joints. (Loc. 4402) This is referring to a humpback condition, not simply a larger bone structure. There is absolutely no evidence that Muhammad suffered from this disability. But the flailing desperation of the author to paint another caricature here is certainly entertaining.

102 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Facts to the Contrary Prove With “No Doubt” Muhammad Was Impotent All this talk about Muhammad’s impotence is speculation, you say. Here is one hadith that leaves no doubt about it. Ibn Sa’d quotes his teacher Waqidi who said: “The prophet of Allâh used to say that I was among those who have little strength for intercourse. Then Allâh sent me a pot with cooked meat. After I ate from it, I found strength any time I wanted to do the work.”[321] (Loc. 4607) In another hadith he said, “Gabriel brought me a small pot of food. I ate from that food and gained the sexual strength of forty men.”[323] Since this claim is absurd, it is more logical to assume that Muhammad fabricated this story to conceal his impotence. (Loc. 4617) In the above two book excerpts, the facts cited (assuming they are true) actually demonstrate that Muhammad was not impotent, since merely by eating certain food this could dramatically increase his sexual vigor "any time" he needed it. Impotence cannot be magically corrected with diet. Yet, ironically, the author deliriously claims that this evidence “leaves no doubt” about his impotence claim.

Then what is even more bizarre, the author schizophrenically debunks his own “leaves no doubt” evidence by claiming that “it is more logical to assume that Muhammad fabricated the story to conceal his impotence”! So when wild and suspicious hadiths support the author’s delirious fantasies, they must be unquestionably true per the author. However, when other hadiths contradict the author’s delirious fantasies and hate narrative, they must not only be false, but deliberately false and deceitful to cover up the exact opposite “truth” that the “false” hadiths must be trying to hide!

The last time I heard this “heads I win, tails you lose” kindergarten logic was, well, sometime not long after kindergarten. When a schizophrenic Messiah of “truth” has a debate with himself, this is exactly the type of analysis one would expect to see. The conclusion that he wants to reach is guaranteed to never be wrong. Such “truth” has set him free from both rational accountability and all possible contradictions.

The arguments on Muhammad’s impotence are among the most bizarre in the book. The author has to make up some wild fantasy that Muhammad’s own child Ibrahim was not really his at all, but someone else’s, just to make the theory work. This child died in infancy, which grieved Muhammad dearly, and he conceived this child very late in life. This fact alone obviates the author’s impotency claim, and the fact that Muhammad was so devastated by the child’s death belies the claim that the child was not his.

If he were impotent, he would have known without a doubt it was not his.

Not only that, the diagnosis of impotence is difficult enough in modern medicine, even with full clinical access to a patient. One of the only ways to get a confident diagnosis is via overnight nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) studies at a sleep laboratory, since erections are a regular part of every normal male’s sleep cycle (3-5 times/night), and this is the only way to reliably isolate true physiological impotence from false psychological impotence. But even this clinical study is not foolproof. Yet somehow we are expected to believe the author’s monomaniacal medical claims across 1.4 millennia without any patient history or clinical diagnoses whatsoever. Uh, right.

103 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only “Making New Converts” is the Main Goal of Islam (Other than the Main Goal of Jihad) Muslims’ main goal is to promote Islam. This practice is called da’wa. It is the duty of every Muslim to make new converts, starting with their own family and friends. Expanding Islam is the obsession of every Muslim, particularly the newcomers. (Loc. 4810) Uh, I seemed to have missed both the Quran’s top priority “to make new converts” and the memo regarding the same from our top secret Moozlamic HQ (I shouldn’t even be telling you this HQ exists because of my super-duper-secret taqiyya oath, but I’m bad at keeping secrets). There is no such concept in Islam as “making new converts”. The word da’wa simply means “invitation” or “call”, that is all, and it is only alluded to very briefly in the Quran. It most definitely does not imply proactive persuasion, let alone coercion, as the author implies. Therefore, to label da’wa (the invitation to Islam) as the “main goal” of Muslims is absolutely absurd, especially in the modern world where the awareness of Islam is ubiquitous.

I generally don’t spend any time on da’wa unless this is also defined as answering questions that nonMuslims pose to me without my initiating any conversation on Islam. The same applies to other Muslims I know. They are not involved in any dedicated da’wa at all that I am aware of, nor are da’wa programs actively promoted in mosques, let alone central to their mission based on my experience at many mosques.

If this claim were true, then where are all these Islamic missionary organizations hiding and operating that are comparable to the hundreds of Christian ones? Are they running around in Harry Potter invisibility cloaks so that no one can see them? Or maybe they are masquerading as all the Christian missionary organizations under the banner of taqiyya? Yeah, that must be it. For those who irrationally fear Islam, what they are convinced can’t be true, per the Messiah of “truth”, is that Muslims believe in God guiding those who first choose faith in God alone (i.e., monotheism = tawheed). Such a fundamental respect by Muslims for freedom of choice would mean non-Muslims could not possibly be coerced or even persuaded into Islam by mere “da’wa” (invitation).

Raising “Jihad” Money is the Main Goal of ALL Muslims The group is preoccupied with making money. Raising funds for jihad is one of the main objectives of all Muslims. (Loc. 4817) “Making new converts” was “the main goal” of Islam yesterday. Today, the main goal of Islam is “raising Jihad money”.

Uh oh, the Messiah of “truth” is onto us. The real reason why Muslims cannot even afford to build a decent and sizeable enough mosque with a real parking lot without decades of fundraising is that we are donating all of our money to jeehawd. Yup, you know all that jeehawd where Muslims are killing each other (roughly 90% of all “terrorist” attack victims are Muslim, remember)? Our funding proudly does all of that. The Quran commands Muslims to murder other Muslims – so what do you expect? And we even evaded all those NSA dorks too from seeing what we are doing with all that jeehawd money. Our supercomputers and international finance wizards run circles around those morons.

104 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims Love and Seek Death, and Islam is a “Cult of Death” The Quran says: “…then seek for death, if you are sincere.”(Q.2:94) (Loc. 5477) "O ye that stand on Judaism! If ye think that ye are friends to Allâh, to the exclusion of (other) men, then express your desire for Death, if ye are truthful.” (Q.62:6) (Loc. 5479) According to the twisted mind of narcissists like Jim Jones and Muhammad, the ultimate test of devotion is death. (Loc. 5481) Like most cults Islam is a cult of death. A Muslim’s entire thought revolves around his death. He is told that the fastest way to Paradise is to die, while killing someone else. (Loc. 7071) This one is hilarious. So the “main goal” of Muslims is no longer “making converts” OR “raising Jihad money” – it is now just death. Got it.

The true meaning of these words from the Quran is exactly opposite to the author’s unhinged claim. This is not what Muhammad said to any Muslims, as the author embarrassingly alleges. It is what Muhammad said in ridicule to those who reject Islam and fanatically claim that they are the ones destined for heaven to the exclusion of "others of mankind" (i.e., Muslims and everyone else too). In other words, it was not a reflection of Muhammad’s fanaticism at all, but rather his piercing ridicule of fanaticism in others! What a way for the author to destroy his argument with his own facts.

No Muslim should ever desire death, and no Muslim can ever be assured of salvation, no matter what fanatics may claim. Muslims should always be grateful for life, even when they are willing to die to protect the lives of others, per the universal principles of the Just War Doctrine. Even U.S. soldiers commonly refer to such devotion to save others while still loving one’s own life as “the ultimate sacrifice”. Those who may “desire death” are ungrateful for life and what God has given them. They are actually considered Kafirs in Islam, not devout Muslims. Being ungrateful, and thus actively rejecting God, is surprisingly how the Quran self-defines the word Kafir, contrary to the popular delusion that it simply means a passive lack of belief.

That said, this kind of “passion for death” plot line would be great for a “feature film”. Throw in a zombie, Dawn of the Dead twist mixed with a Twilight-style romance with the undead, and it’ll be golden – like minting money, which the author desperately needs per his online begging.

Muslims Are Both 100% Certain AND Uncertain of Their Salvation A Muslim’s life is filled with uncertainty. A Muslim can never be certain whether he has earned the acceptance of God or whether he will be thrown into hell. (Loc. 7074) Whoopsee, the author just completely contradicted himself. Why would any rational Muslim seek death, as argued so intensely above, with absolutely no certainty of Paradise? Either he knows he has a ticket to Paradise or he doesn’t. Oh, well, let’s just blame that mind trip on another bad reefer from Muslim-majority Afghanistan – Islamdunnit again. Nothing more to see here, folks - move along. .

105 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims Are Expected to Devote Inordinate Time to Group Activities Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. Muslims’ main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, and listen to the sermons. (Loc. 4825) Uh, no, not at all. Just once per week for men (same as Christians and Jews) and zero attendance for women is “expected”. Moreover, this expectation is only from God, not from some shadowy morality police that doesn’t even exist and has no sanction whatsoever per the Quran. The only day-to-day activity for Muslims is really prayer, which takes less than 20 minutes out of the whole day and can be done privately at home or work. People spend more time watching a single sitcom or smoking a couple of cigarettes per day than that. Wow, that’s SOOOO onerous.

Quran 29:8 Commands “Destruction of Family Ties” Now We have enjoined on man goodness towards his parents; yet (even so) should they endeavor to make you commit Shirk (disbelief) with Me of something which you have no knowledge of, obey them not. (Q. 29:8) (Loc. 5641) This one is hilarious. This is the one and only fact from the Quran that the author cites to “prove” that Islam is responsible for “Destruction of Family Ties” per the heading of this book section. He even makes yet another laughable parallel to the cult of Jim Jones.

So, according to the author, a person is supposed to obey a parent's command to commit idolatry just so that he can avoid any rift with his family unit? Uh, so who is the one advocating groupthink, slavery of conscience, social coercion, and Jim Jones-like cult behavior exactly? The Quran is actually championing freedom of conscience and choice above all social ties here, even those of family. In other words, it is making exactly the opposite argument that the author claims. If one’s family respects such a basic human right as freedom of conscience, then they would not demand that their loved ones violate it. It is really that simple. It is too bad that the author was too mentally damaged by his own rejection experience that he was unable to see the truth that could have set him free.

Muslims Must Hate All Non-Muslims Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

Muslims are taught to shun kafirs and to socialize only with fellow Muslims. The Quran prohibits taking friends from among unbelievers (Q.3:28). It calls them najis (filthy, impure) (Q.9:28) and orders harshness against them (Q.9:123). According to Muhammad, unbelievers are the “vilest animals” in the sight of God. (Q.8:55). One Islamic site writes, “One of the aspects of iman (faith) is al wala wal bara, loving and hating for the sake of Allâh Alone. It is one of the most important beliefs of Islam after Tawheed (Oneness of God). (Loc. 4832) For someone who is an ex-Muslim and who has dedicated his life for decades to opposing Islamic doctrine, the only possible explanations for these paranoid delusions are deeply ingrained brainwashing or outright lying to incite hate. Every verse referenced is grossly mistranslated or misinterpreted, and 106 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only hating anyone in Islam is 100% un-Islamic. The lunacy just does not stop, especially when the author insists on citing a whacked out, fringe web site claiming hate is part of Islam. Rather than do a detailed rebuttal of these claims here, we will no doubt take up some of these in our formal debate instead (verse 9:28 and likely verse 8:55 will be covered in debate topic #3).

That said, I have already thoroughly debunked the author’s interpretation of verse 9:123 herein (see below), so that just leaves verse 3:28, which I will touch upon now. This argument is also echoed by Islamophobes when talking about verses 4:139, 4:144, 5:51 and 5:80, all emphasizing the ‘no unbelievers as friends’ propaganda.

“Friends” in these verses is actually more accurately translated with the connotation of “protective allies” in a political sense rather than friendship in a personal sense, per the meaning of the WLY trilateral Arabic root word. Moreover, verse 3:28 only criticizes such alliances when they are “in preference to” Muslims or “to the detriment of” Muslims (i.e., one should not ally with those who persecute and oppress Muslims). The context of the Quran here and history fully support this conclusion too.

Also, the author of course omitted the end of verse 3:28, where it says “unless to safeguard yourselves against them”, meaning that alliances/treaties with non-Muslims are OK if they are to safeguard Muslims rather than to maneuver for one’s personal profit to the detriment of the Muslim community.

This is emphasized also in verse 4:139, which says “Do those who take unbelievers as their allies in preference to the faithful seek power from them? But all power belongs to God.” This clearly implies that the purpose of such a hypocritical alliance is for personal power and profit to the detriment of the Muslim community being oppressed.

This hypocrisy in allying with non-Muslims is clarified more fully in the next verse, 4:140, where it says to leave the company of those non-Muslims who “deride” one’s Muslim faith. In other words, these are the type of non-Muslims one should not ally with, since this would cross the threshold of being “in preference to (or to the detriment of) the faithful”. Note also that it does not say here to fight or kill them for speaking against Islam, but just to leave their company, which acknowledges both the right of free speech and the right to live freely and openly as non-Muslims.

Which non-Muslims should not be allied with is clarified still further in verses 4:141-143, where it is clear that such a private alliance with non-Muslims would be to the detriment of Muslims in the context of a war against those non-Muslims. The point here is not to prohibit alliances or trusting relationships with non-Muslims, but to lambaste the hypocrites who are constantly “wavering between the two” (depending on which side is in power) and who are willing to switch sides as traitors against Muslims for personal profit and power “if fortune favors the infidels” as the likely outcome. Verses 4:140-143, which are invariably omitted by Islamophobes, fall between the two verses that are usually quoted to support a mistranslated and completely out of context interpretation.

In addition, with respect to verse 5:80, Islamophobes conveniently omit to mention who “among them” is at the beginning of the verse. This is referring not to Muslims at all, in allying with infidels, but to those among the People of the Book who had gone astray, per verses 5:78-79.

With respect to verse 5:51, the rational for avoiding an alliance with certain non-Muslims becomes exceedingly clear in the context of verses 5:54 and 5:59. Here it emphasizes that it is wrong to give a 107 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only preference in alliance to those who despise you and "mock and make a sport of your faith" over those who share your faith. How is this natural affiliation not logical or morally consistent in the same way that just about any normal human being would and should behave?

Alliances and treaties with non-Muslims is unequivocally allowed and must be honored in Islam, but not when those “allies” are treasonous against Muslims or are backstabbing by way of lying hypocrisy.

Muslims are even obligated to respect alliances with non-Muslims by not attacking them if those nonMuslims have a conflict with another community of Muslims, per verse 8:72.

In addition to these verses, there are other verses that debunk the Islamophobia hate narrative completely regarding relationships with non-Muslims. Two of these address how Muslims should relate with non-Muslims who are their open enemies but not attacking them (i.e., not even neutral nonMuslims, which is the much more moderate scenario described by the author): It may be that God will create love between you and your enemies. God is all powerful, and God is forgiving, ever-merciful. God does not forbid you from being kind and acting justly towards those who did not fight over faith with you, nor expelled you from your homes. God indeed loves those who are just. He only forbids you from making alliances [same WLY root word] with those who fought over faith with you and banished you from your homes, and aided in your exile. Whoever makes friends with them is a transgressor. (Quran 60:7-9) Good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with what is good. Then you will find your erstwhile enemy like a close, affectionate friend. (Quran 41:34) Hmm – loving enemies as long as they don’t oppress and persecute you, and being kind and just towards them – that sounds not just fair to me, but extremely magnanimous. This also clarifies unequivocally the verses elsewhere about who Muslims should not make friends with: those who oppress and persecute them because of their faith or who aid those who do so. If you look at the context of those other verses, as I did in part above, the same message against aiding oppressors of Muslims applies there as well. The idea that Muslims cannot form alliances, treaties or productive, trusting relationships with anyone except other Muslims is simply absurd.

Insulting Muhammad Transforms Intelligent Muslims into Dr. Jekyll Murderers This can be said of all cultists. They are normal, intelligent people, until you mention their cult leader. Muslims are generally affable people until you mention Muhammad. Then suddenly, blood rushes to their heads, insanity overtakes them and some of them become murderers and savages. Cultists are all alike. (Loc. 4950) Well, while reading this book dedicated obsessively to Muhammad, laughter overtook me, and I sometimes yawned kind of like a savage, you know with my teeth showing a bit. Does that count?

“Cultists are all alike”, so I guess that reaction qualifies. If it didn’t, then the Messiah of “truth” would be flat-out wrong, which, of course, is impossible…. or maybe not. Not to be picky, but the two phrases “some of them become murderers and savages” and “cultists are all alike” are logically contradictory.

Sorry, but “some” can never logically equal “all”. Hyperbole certainly has a funny way of putting one’s foot in one’s mouth.

108 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslims Pretend to Pray, and They Do So Just to Provoke Non-Muslims Today, Muslims build their mosques and minarets in every Western city and pollute the air with the noise of azan. The goal is the same. Everything they do, from how they dress to how they stand in the middle of streets and bring the traffic to a halt pretending to be praying, are designed to provoke. (Loc. 825) Oh, yeah, Muslims take valuable time off work to go to grossly underfunded mosques just so that they can pray on a dirty sidewalk to provoke non-Muslims. Everything Muslims do connected with Islam is not because they genuinely want to, but just because they want to antagonize non-Muslims by exercising their simple right to worship and dress as they choose. I hope the author is taking some strong medication, because this kind of unhinged paranoid antipathy is seriously off-the-rails loony.

Those Who Call Themselves Muslim Are Arrogant Supremacists per Quran 3:110 Arrogantly speaking, we Muslims were ‘the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.’ (3:110) (Loc. 6019) No. There is no entitlement in Islam or inherent supremacy of those who call themselves Muslim.

Muslims can only be the “the best of peoples” when the Ummatin (community) enjoin the right, forbids the wrong, and has faith in God, per the immediate context of this verse. As 3:110 also says, the same praise could apply to the People of the Book if they did the same. It is not necessarily exclusive to those who call themselves Muslims.

The Mass Murderer Breivik Was Justifiably Motivated by Anger Against Islam Andres Behring Breivik the 32 year old extremist who bombed a government building in Oslo that resulted in eight deaths, and shot 69 mostly teenagers in a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labor Party may have been a lone wolf, a sick individual suffering from narcissism and delusions of grandiosity. However, the anger against Islam and the liberals who blindly support it is going main stream. (Loc. 7680) Yes, indeed, the hate and unjust violence against Muslims is becoming “main stream”. What makes this quote hilarious and unhinged is the author’s complete obliviousness to the fear-mongering cause of most unjust violence against Muslims, both by states and terrorist individuals. Breivik, for example, may have been a "lone wolf", but he invoked Robert Spencer, the author, the author’s web site, and a small cadre of other Islamophobia hate propagandists over 400 times as the direct inspiration for his atrocities (per my text search count, which I have documented elsewhere online).

For details and quotes from Breivik’s manifesto proving his undeniable connection to Islamophobes such as the author, see the following article: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/website-reviews-anders-behring-breiviks-manifesto-reads-justlike-jihad-watch-atlas-shrugs-and-other-counter-jihad-websites/ 109 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslim Patrols in “No Go Sharia Zones” Are the New Law in Some Western Towns They refuse to integrate. They build ghettos and no-go zones for the locals, including the police.

(Loc. 7684) Oh my. The author is caught with his propaganda pants down yet again. The “no-go sharia zones” is utter nonsense. Here are just a couple of the many links that debunk this and other histrionic Islamophia claims: http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/another-fake-story-about-muslims-demanding-special-treatment/ http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/the-times-discovers-another-muslim-patrol/

Meccans, Like Non-Muslims of Today (incl. the Author!), Tolerated All Religions The Meccans, like most non-Muslims of today, were tolerant of all religions. (Loc. 676) Ah, yes, those “tolerant” Meccans. Unfortunately, the author contradicts himself on several occasions, such as in the very next quote. Whoopsee.

Meccans Were Tolerant – They Physically Violated Private Muslim Prayers to Prove It Ibn Ishaq reports: “When the Prophet’s Companions wanted to pray, they went to the glens so that their people could not see them praying, and while Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas was with a number of the prophet’s companions in one of the glens of Mecca, a band of polytheists came upon them while they were praying and rudely interrupted them. They blamed them for what they were doing until they came to blows, and it was on that occasion that Sa’d smote a polytheist with the jawbone of a camel and wounded him. This was the first blood to be shed in Islam.”

[29] (Loc. 680) Yes, those “tolerant” Meccans, who clearly violated the right of Muslims to freely worship, even when they deliberately avoided the Meccans so that the Meccans could not see the Muslims quietly pray. If anyone consistently prevented Christians from worshipping in the U.S. in a similar manner, especially when Christians went out of their way to do so privately, this would be more than enough just cause for Christians to fight back, guns-a-blazing. To claim otherwise is not only anti-American, but a direct violation and surrendering of the rights of U.S. citizens per the United States Constitution. Apparently, the author does not feel that fighting to protect such sacred Constitutional and universal rights is worthy or justified. Shame on him, and shame on his hypocrisy.

Muslims Spilled the First Blood Because They Wrongly Resisted Religious Persecution The first blood spilled in Islam, as stated in all Muhammad’s biographies, was the blood of a non-Muslim by Muslims. Muslims started the hostilities. They were the ones who persecuted 110 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only their detractors, and not the other way around. This killing sent a shockwave through the Quraish, who realized that their opponent, in his quest for power, is willing to kill and would not respect any law. (Loc. 2879) Notice how this quote from the author includes no source reference at all, but it clearly alludes to the same incident in the previous quote, which did have a source reference directly from Ibn Ishaq (“This was the first blood to be shed in Islam”, per Ibn Ishaq, which is invoked as “The first blood spilled in Islam”, per the author here). In the original Ibn Ishaq source, it clearly states that a band of Quraish men went out of their way to track down and attack the Muslims while they were quietly and very privately praying away from prying eyes.

But facts don’t get in the way of the author flagrantly lying (twice) in his retelling of this same story much later in his book here, where he now states the following: “Muslims started the hostilities. They were the ones who persecuted their detractors, and not the other way around.” The author also flagrantly lies by now stating that a “killing” occurred instead of a mere injury from a camel bone, per the original source that he himself quotes! Moreover, notice how he lies – for the fourth time in the same paragraph – in attributing this act directly to Muhammad, who was not even mentioned as the one who did it!: “This killing sent a shockwave through the Quraish, who realized that their opponent, in his quest for power, is willing to kill and would not respect any law.” Oh my, someone must have been tripp’n on way too much Kool-Aid while writing this book. And to think that he was so dimwitted to think that his readers would not even cross-check against what he himself cited in his own book!

Muslims “Abused” Inanimate Objects With Words Ibn Ishaq continues, “When the apostle openly displayed Islam as God ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that they took great offence and revolted unanimously to treat him as an enemy.” (Loc. 688) This is a plea, an ultimatum to Muhammad to stop abusing their gods. (Loc. 700) How exactly can inanimate objects be "abused" by words, per the second excerpt by the author? Is he delirious to imagine that these objects have feelings? Also, what happened to all of that pagan "tolerance", as he just asserted above? But most important of all, what happened to the author’s respect for the democratic right of free speech, as enshrined in the United States Constitution? He is taking the side of the autocratic Meccans by asserting that they were correct not only to deny Muhammad’s right to free speech, but to use violence and oppression to stop it! Oh my, how deliciously ironic is the author’s hypocrisy here given his invocation of free speech rights with respect to his virulent criticism of Islam and Muslims.

Islam is Bad Because It Tells Slaves to Disobey Their Masters and the Social Order Muhammad was not against slavery. He forced thousands of free people into slavery. By telling his companions to disobey their masters and their parents, he was disrupting the social order of Mecca. (Loc. 812) 111 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only This has to be the most hypocritical and absurd pro-slavery quote I have seen in a long time. Islam is bad because it tells slaves to disobey their masters and to serve only God, not a human master. Got it.

Islam is Bad Because It Abused the Respect of Slaves for their Slave Masters Let us put ourselves in the shoes of those masters who expected that their slaves be respectful of them and their religion, but seeing that they had converted to this new cult, they had become scornful of their faith. They could not reason with Muslims. Islam is not based on reason. They were punished for their insolence. (Loc. 761) Well, just when I thought I heard the worst pro-slavery quote, the author kicks it up yet another notch with his sycophantic sympathy for both slavery and the severe punishment of slaves (including torture – e.g., of Bilal, which he quoted) for their exercise of mere freedom of conscience. As a worldwide beacon of “freedom of faith” and as a Messiah of “truth” seeking to set the world free of religious oppression, what could possibly be more hypocritical that supporting the torturous punishment of a slave for exercising his freedom of conscience? Wow – just WOW!

Beating, Starving and Economic Deprivation of Muslims Was Not Persecution Depriving one’s rebellious child of pocket money, food, etc., and even beating them to rectify them is not religious persecution. (Loc. 771) And here we have our freedom of conscience leader and liberty-loving author advocating more of his schizophrenic family values. Contrary to what he dedicated his life to, it is perfectly OK to oppress and persecute adult “children” who don’t agree with the pagan, idolatrous nonsense that their parents have forced upon them. Oh, and by the way, just to clarify what the author is asserting, absolutely none of this religious oppression and persecution is allowed to be called “persecution” when it is done against Islam and Muslims. Got it.

Savagely Beating One’s Servant for Becoming Muslim is Not Religious Persecution Omar, prior to his conversion, had tied up his sister forcing her to leave Islam.[36] He is also reported to have savagely beaten his maid.[37] (Loc. 784) Once again, this most definitely does not qualify as religious persecution by the author either. What I find so hilarious is that I don’t even have to do my own research or use additional facts to debunk the author’s own claims. His own cherry-picked facts do that for me!

Freedom of Conscience Should Be Sacrificed for the Sake of Tribal Loyalties Othman who was seized and bonded by his uncle Hakam, who told him, “Do you prefer a new religion to that of your fathers? I swear I will not set you free until you give up this new faith you are following.” Othman said; “By the Lord, I will never abandon it!” (Loc. 790) 112 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only According to the author, a freedom of conscience-loving adult like Othman (in his mid-30s here!) should have just surrendered to the religious oppression of his father and his tribal pagan masters. So when a Muslim is similarly oppressed by his or her family, is the author’s advice exactly the same – to obey his parents so that he doesn’t “disrupt the social order”? For all those who are reading this now, this is what it looks like when a bare naked hypocrite like the author gets completely owned – not just with his own quoted facts, but with his own purported lifetime mission to boot!

The Meccans Respected Religious Pluralism and Didn’t Care What Muslims Believed Polytheists generally don’t care about what others believe. They are pluralistic by their very nature. (Loc. 816) As the author’s own facts quoted herein demonstrate, clearly the Meccans did not get this memo from the founding father of Polytheism that the author is apparently invoking without any reference. There are also many more historical quotes demonstrating the clear persecution of Muslims in Mecca that the author failed to mention. As our seemingly schizophrenic author proves with his facts alone, the Meccans clearly rejected their “pluralistic” father of Polytheism, whoever he was. They neither allowed nor permitted freedom of conscience, freedom of worship or freedom of speech to Muslims in Mecca.

Perhaps the author could quote from pagan scripture to prove that the Meccans were just “bad pagans” not following their honorable religion. I would gladly eat my hat if the author could do that. But that won’t happen. The author is too busy eating his.

Also, the author is missing a very important point. The pagan Arabs did not believe in a diversity of religions just because they worshipped multiple gods. To them it was only one basic religion, similar to Hinduism, because the gods were all part of a single Hellenistic pantheon. This is discussed in some detail in Reza Aslan’s book on the early history of Islam, No God but God, among other sources.

The Meccans Had a Right to Extradite Muslims from Abyssinia for Rejecting Idolatry Eighty three of them migrated to Abyssinia. Their relatives dispatched two men to Negus, the king of Abyssinia, to demand their extradition. (Loc. 796) Muslims fled persecution all the way to Abyssinia, yet the “tolerant” Meccans demanded their “extradition” so that they could be tried and punished (and persecuted indefinitely) for their crime of rejecting idolatry. Bravo to “Faith Freedom International” for upholding its most sacred mission once again. The author is truly (according to his definition of “truth”) a beacon of hope and freedom for us all.

Torturous Scorching Death for Not Rejecting Islam Was Also Not Religious Persecution There is a story about a slave woman known as Summayyah. It is claimed that she, her husband Yassir, and her son Ammar, were made to sit in the heat of the sun until they recant and that she was subsequently killed. (Loc. 803) 113 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muslim converts were tortured and left out in the desert heat to die because of their conversion.

According to the author, this too is not really persecution at all. Perhaps it was just a little overindulgence in Arabian sunbathing, a delightful pastime that accidentally got a bit out of hand on this one occasion. Yup, let’s go with that one.

Economic and Social Deprivation for Years Was Also Not Religious Persecution This [complete economic and social] boycott [against Muslims in Mecca] lasted, perhaps two years. It was hard on the Muslims, but this shouldn’t be mistaken as persecution. (Loc. 749) Of course it wasn’t “hard on the Muslims” to be completely ostracized both economically and socially for such an extended period of time. For example, why would Muslims even care about money from business/employment income in order to survive and meet their basic needs anyway? That’s just a trivial inconvenience. What was a bit more unfortunate, though, was not only could Muslims not sell their goods and services to the Meccan community, they could also not buy from it either, even if they had sufficient wealth to do so. But that, too, was ultimately not really a problem at all. They just headed to their local Wal-Mart instead, right outside of town.

Imprisoning and Torturing Muslims Was Also Not Religious Persecution Ibn Ishaq says “the Quraish displayed their animosity to all those who followed the Prophet.

Every clan attacked their Muslims, imprisoning and torturing them by hunger and thirst, and exposing them to the burning heat of Mecca, so as to draw them away from their religion.”[34] (Loc. 755) Persecution? What persecution? This is the kind of good natured Arabian fun that builds character and puts hairs on the chest. As the author asserts, to call these crybaby Muslims victims here just because of a little torture over a few years is just a fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam. As they say at the Ministry of Truth, per my buddy Winston Smith, who is resident there and quite familiar with the author’s teachings, “The truth will set you free”.

Religious Persecution Didn’t Happen and All Reputable Historians Are Wrong The claim that Muhammad and Muslims were persecuted in Mecca is accepted uncritically by many, if not all non-Muslim historians as well. (Loc. 892) Similar deception can be seen in the works of Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, and a host of other “experts” of Islam. (Loc. 6076) Isn’t it delightful how a paranoid schizophrenic is always so good at shooting himself in the foot with his own facts and logic that the other side of his brain is clearly not processing? “The claim that Muhammad and Muslims were persecuted in Mecca is accepted uncritically by many, if not all nonMuslim historians” for a very good reason. The evidence that such persecution happened is overwhelming, strongly convergent, and independently confirmed. Moreover, subsequent events are 114 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only simply unexplainable without such persecution having occurred to precipitate them. The only howling idiots who can’t see the obvious historical facts are those with extremist hate agendas whom absolutely no reputable historian would ever endorse. When the author can muster more than ad hominem or a juvenile rebuttal to such historians’ facts and logic, then I just might deign to debate him on such history.

“Live and Let Live” is an Ideology of Narcissism and Intolerance Say : “O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that, which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.” (Loc. 835, Quran Sura 109) These verses are not about tolerance. They express the typical way a narcissist shows his disdain to those who don’t agree with him. (Loc. 861) Sura 109 is perhaps the most beautiful and visionary statement of religious tolerance that I have ever heard, and it can be logically demonstrated as such too. However, quite shockingly, the author somehow interprets these verses as sending the exact opposite message of intolerance. It seems that “tolerance” to the author must imply surrendering one’s religious faith to someone else’s oppressive autocratic demand rather than walk away so that there is no conflict. This, to me, is perhaps the most egregious and screaming example of the author’s sheer and utter hypocrisy with respect to freedom of conscience, and freedom in general (with the possible exception of his pro-slavery quotes above). These verses explicitly dictate the most universally respected standard for religious tolerance, which is “LIVE AND LET LIVE.” Apparently, even such a universal standard that has no ethical equal is hideously objectionable to the author. Wow.

God Created Adam Defective, Knowing Mankind Would Sin The contradiction does not end there. The verse 2:35 says that Allâh told Adam, “Dwell with your wife in paradise and eat anything you want from this bountiful food from wherever you wish , but do not approach this tree, or you shall both become transgressors.” The question posed was, was Adam created to be placed on earth as Allâh’s vicegerent or was he created to live in Paradise and was kicked out from there as the result of his transgression? (Loc. 2718) Why Allâh would create Adam defective, knowing he would do mischief and shed blood? (Loc. 2740) No, humanity was not created defective at all, but simply with free will. Free will implies both the good and the evil that come with it. The entire story of Adam and Eve is about how humanity began. It is not about the creation of the human biological form (no, evolution did that part), but about God giving mankind the spiritual soul (“nafs”) of free will. Such free will was granted to the full extent of permitting humanity to disobey God, even to reject the very existence of God. It was granted with the power of knowledge (via the allegorical Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) to exercise that free will for both good and evil. Inevitably, all of humanity, even every last prophet and messenger of God, are 115 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only transgressors at some point in their lives. Why? Because they have the free will to do so. However, it is what they choose to do after their transgression that matters above all to God.

Killing Treasonous Leaders is Wrong Because They Are Really Just Poets Ka’b bin Ashraf was another victim of Muhammad. He was a handsome and a talented poet - a chief of the Banu Nadir. (Loc. 1398) I always get a kick out of how Islamophobes love to characterize any charismatic leader who fought against Muslims as a “poet”. It’s like packing three juicy propaganda messages into one hateburger: 1) Muslims as perpetrators of violent injustice; 2) Muslims as violent enemies of “free speech”; and 3) Muslims as “savages”, who naturally must hate anything and everything civilized like “poetry”.

As for this particular example, the author is euphemistically describing a "poet" who just happened to be the Chief of the Bani Nadir tribe, who treasonously allied with the Quraish in war vs. the Muslims. I wonder if the author feels similar remorse or condemnation for the killing of “poets” like Adolf Hitler and other autocrats, who clearly knew the power of words in leading their people: http://www.poemhunter.com/adolf-hitler/ ? Even Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s right hand poetry man, actually started his career in “poetry, theater, and the arts” (http://goebbels.8k.com/). Shucks, you mean the U.S. targeted and killed poets too?

Random TLE “Electrical Storms” in Muhammad’s Brain Produced the Quran …epileptic seizures are essentially an electrical storm in his temporal lobes when a group of neurons starts firing at random, out of sync with rest of his brain. (Loc. 3579) I don’t disagree with the description of an epileptic seizure here, since that is basically what happens in the brain. However, rudimentary common sense regarding the apparent literary productivity that can be derived from epilepsy radically conflicts with the logical implication of this random brain activity. So random electrical storms in the brain can somehow produce a book that over 1.5 billion Muslims consider beautiful, mellifluent, and completely consistent in its message? The author won’t admit it, of course, but it sounds just like the hackneyed argument that a monkey could write a Shakespearian play if he writes long (or fast) enough. Well, anything is possible, I suppose. I’ll give him that!

It is predictably funny how the author could not come up with even one example of any TLE patient who achieved similar levels of incredible literary productivity during or immediately after an epileptic seizure.

Also, Muhammad's revelations were generally not random, but usually very contextual and relevant to a particular moment in time or issue. But, of course, such flagrant factual contradictions to the author’s narrative are really just minor points to him, so he blissfully ignores them.

TLE Sufferers Are Actually Creative Geniuses in Disguise, and TLE is the Cause Far from being stupid, the TLE sufferers are among the geniuses. TLE can well be defined as the disease of creativity. (Loc. 3687) 116 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Wow, now TLE sounds like a wonderful gift, not a disease! I think the author is trying to buttress his argument about how TLE can somehow enhance literary productivity via hyper-random neuron firing. I am now beginning to wonder if the author is now projecting his own TLE given how great it can supposedly make a person.

Hypochondriacal Speculation and Projection Are Rigorous Research Methods Narcissism is frequently accompanied by a series of co-morbidities. Likewise, clinically, the sufferer of TLE is commonly diagnosed as having a variety of psychiatric illnesses….In this chapter we’ll explore the possibility of several co-morbidities in Muhammad starting with the most obvious. (Loc. 3838) Ah, yes. More hypochondriacal projection by the author based on the logical fallacy of mining for facts to fit any and every possible diagnosis with a shred of support. In other words, we’ll just throw everything at the wall to see what might stick. Never mind how I already pilloried both the TLE and NPD claims above, which are the premise for all these potential co-morbidities. This quote admitting to the author’s confirmation bias agenda was just too delicious to leave out.

A Circular Argument is a Great Way to Make a Very Compelling Point Can we really say that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism? (Loc. 1014) Does the author have any idea whatsoever what a complete fool he is making out of himself by asking a rhetorical question with completely circular logic? Yes, genius, if you have declared the assumption that such terrorism is “Islamic”, then the answer becomes self-evident, now doesn’t it? This just shows that if you really want something to be true so desperately, all you have to do is force the answer that you want into your own question.

Muslims Will Still Exist and Enjoy Freedom After the End of Islam With the end of Islam will come, the freedom of Muslims and their prosperity. (Loc. 7145) This one is even more hilarious. Although it seems impossible not to keep your dots connected with circular logic, the author somehow cannot even keep his own circular logic from staying circular.

No, "With the end of Islam will come the end of" Muslims. How can there logically be any Muslims left without Islam?

“Universally Accepted” “Sharia Laws” Can Also Be Soundly Rejected by the Quran These laws are universally accepted by both Sunnis and Shiites and are the basis of the laws in Islamic countries. The Sharia derives from the Quran and the hadith. (Loc. 8210)

117 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Wrong. These 33 hysteria-inducing “Sharia” laws are generally rejected by the majority of Muslims, especially educated ones, and hadiths do not even support the bulk of them. The Quran rejects virtually all 33 of them, and generally does not support the remainder.

The Jihad Pillar of Islam is Secretly Hiding Within the Zakat Pillar A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad. (Loc. 8139) Uh, where exactly does the Quran stipulate any percentage going towards “jihad”? But more hilarious, what democratic country in the world has ever not allocated a certain percentage of money to “jihad” (as defined by the author)? In the U.S., “jihad” expenditures are roughly 50% of estimated tax revenues and over 40% of arms spending on the entire planet Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States). Perhaps the author should be showing at least some outrage at these very real “jihad” numbers instead of his completely imaginary number.

Stealth Muslims Have Infiltrated the U.S. Gov., and Obama is Working for Them Muslims have infiltrated into western governments and even into the White House. Anyone who still does not know the fraudulent president of America, Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim sympathizer must have his head examined. This advancement of Islam was expected. Muslims have been planning for decades for their takeover of the West. (Loc. 8087) Muslims come to the West and pretend to be moderates. They say everything you want to hear, but they secretly plan your destruction. They smile, are friendly and amiable. They even pretend to love your country and be patriotic. However, their only objective is to make Islam dominant. (Loc. 1713) Ah yes, the debunked 1991 Muslim Brotherhood doc. about “civilization jihad” is being invoked here by the author, along with the ad hominem invalidation of ALL Muslims as pretenders (liars). However, like every Islamophobe who promotes this jingoistic claim, the author won’t directly reference it as proof because he knows how easily it withers under the most rudimentary and superficial analysis. It is amazing how much Islamophobia mileage can be milked out of a junk document almost a quarter of a century old. If the author would like to be thoroughly humiliated on this “stealth jihad” master plan in the same way that I humiliated Zudhi Jasser – twice – I would be more than happy to oblige.

Even friendly Muslims are just pretending on a massive, monolithic scale according to the author, reminiscent of movies like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, where the aliens look like and pretend to be human in order to take over the planet. In reality, these non-humans (aliens/Muslims) are not friendly at all, but hideously evil, and all of them are secretly conspiring to snatch your body or kill you.

On top of this, we have the author preaching his “birther” claims on “Barak [sic] Hussein Obama”, the secret “Muslim sympathizer” conspiring to help carry out the ominous “civilization jihad” threat. Could the Moozlamic paranoia possibly get more unhinged? At this point, it is not difficult to imagine the author’s devotees all running around with tinfoil hats on.

118 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only To be honest, the author and his devotees should be scared. As I have ominously warned others more than once, I secretly represent the “Organization of the Moozlamic Intergalactic Empire” (“O MIE!” for short), and I have come to Earth as part of an army of invisible Moozlims with kafir-targeting ray guns – not to kill, but to forcibly convert, via mind control anti-kafir rays. To quote the author, “You will soon be one of us.”

Quran 25:52 Commands Muslims to Kill All “Unbelievers” Governing Them A Muslim cannot accept the rule of unbelievers. He must disobey them, fight against them, and endeavor to kill them. (Q.25:52) (Loc. 6069) This verse say nothing about the rule of "unbelievers" or killing anyone! The action of ‘struggle against’ (jihad) is self-defined here as not listening to nor following (obeying) the "unbelievers" (KFR root) with respect to religion, but warning them, that is all. In fact, a subsequent verse (25:56) clarifies this struggle further as explicitly restricting Muhammad’s mission to being a messenger only,: to warn (the KFR) and to give glad tidings to the faithful. And the preceding verse (25:51) reveals exactly what Muslims should be leveraging in their struggle (jihad): the warning from God’s warner (i.e., the Quran) itself. Therefore, this verse is merely asserting and urging the struggle for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, which every human being is entitled to. There is no political supremacism nonsense implied here at all.

The author’s paranoid delusions are in overdrive once again. The poor thing is afraid of the weaponization of mere words and moral warnings!

There is a Severe Initiation/Hazing Ritual To Become a Muslim In the People’s Temple, the process started with the effects of undergoing a severe initiation to join the church, was reinforced by the tendency to justify ones commitments, and was strengthened by the need to rationalize ones behavior. (Loc. 6093) The same could be said of the early Muslims. Those who followed Muhammad to Medina had nothing to fall back on. They had no jobs and no homes. (Loc. 6109) In these two comments, among many others, the author makes outrageously flawed comparisons between the cult of Jim Jones and the early Muslim community in Medina.

With respect to the first quote, the author’s comparison could not possibly fail more. In contrast to the “severe initiation” rites to join the People’s Temple, there is zero initiation to become a Muslim. A simple public statement (shahada) is the only formality, but even this is not technically required. Only a heart dedicated to monotheism (God alone) is required to be Muslim.

With respect to the second quote, the author’s comparison is exactly the opposite to the reality of the historical early Muslim community. Muhammad didn't steal any Muslim’s homes, land, farms, and other means of subsistence. The pagan Quraish did, after they forced them from Mecca.

119 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Muhammad is a Criminal for Potentially Forgiving a Crime When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people called on the man to explain why he committed such horrendous murder. The man stood up while trembling and said: “I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you.” (Loc. 6129) Today, in Islamic countries, minorities are killed over personal disputes and all that the killer has to say is that the victim insulted the Prophet and walk free or get a lenient sentence. (Loc. 6138) A crime was acknowledged as a murder and forgiven, so it is only the forgiveness that can be criticized here. However, this judgment contradicts the Quran (only the heirs of the woman can grant such forgiveness) and therefore must be rejected. This hadith was almost certainly fabricated or manipulated due to idolatry of Muhammad by subsequent hadith narrators during the quarter of a millennium before this hadith was finally written down. This is why using hadiths to create or change God’s law is utterly wrong (as elaborated upon further herein).

Believing in Muhammad is the Sole Purpose of the Creation of Every Person According to a hadith qudsi, (believed absolutely to be true) the purpose of life is to know Allâh and to worship him, made possible only through his messenger Muhammad. Since believing in Muhammad is the sole purpose of the creation of every person, promoting his cause is regarded as the most important endeavor. In this quest, everything, including crime is permissible. (Loc. 6195) What complete howling idiocy: “Muhammad is the sole purpose of the creation of every person”! Islam is 100% about worshipping God, not Muhammad, and no prophet or messenger can be an intermediary or intercessor with God. Muslims, including many prophets described as “Muslims” in the Quran, lived and died long before Muhammad was even born.

However, the last sentence is where the author really goes completely off the rails. I think the only explanation here is that the author must have had a very serious hate seizure, and he forgot to stop writing to avoid embarrassing himself: "everything, including crime is permissible [in promoting Muhammad’s cause]”. And the author secretly wonders why no one but other howling idiots and those on hate payrolls take him seriously! Well, if he would just read his own words, he would have the answer.

The Nazis Were Inspired by an Obscure Hadith About a Specific Tribe of Jews In 1940 the Nazi Germany produced a movie in the form of documentary called “The Eternal Jew” that served to dehumanize the Jews and prepare for Hitler’s “Final Solution.” The film compared the Jewish people to rats. Why rats? Because it is in a hadith. “Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it,

120 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats.”[444] (Loc. 7172) So where exactly is the connection of this extremely obscure hadith to Hitler documented? And how does a hadith referring to a single community of Jews who rejected God and violated the Torah suddenly become generalized to all Jews? Moreover, Jews were referred to as rats by many contemporaries of Hitler and others in history, who were much more plausible sources. But, hey, it sounds so much better in any hate narrative when you can throw in Nazis and Nazism, then assert with flippant ease, “Islamdunnit”. Yup, Islam is guilty according to the most flimsy and laughable association imaginable.

Quran 2:96 Condemns ALL Jews, Not Just Those With Moses Who Rejected God Quran 2:96 says Jews are the greediest of all humankind, who would like to live 1000 years. (Loc. 7177) Nope. No such generalization remotely exists in the Quran. The “them” being referred to here are fanatical zealots who claim that they hold the keys to heaven – i.e., that they are already “saved”, and others will not be. These individuals also demonstrated a wee bit of that greed by rejecting the message of God that Moses brought and worshipping a golden calf instead. It’s a very famous story, even in the Bible – the author might want to read it sometime. But the author chose instead to humiliate himself by making a claim that would leave him bare-naked once again. And I did it so easily, with just a trivial amount of effort. I simply opened the Quran and read it.

Trans-Millennial Telepathy and Clairvoyance Are Valid Research Methods This man was from Banu Tamim. His tribe was not Muslim. They had joined the expedition for a share in the loot alone. Now that Muhammad was victorious, he did not feel the need to honor his end of the bargain. (Loc. 5605) Again, zero support for this bald claim is presented. But the devotees of the author can at least be impressed by the author’s trans-millennial telepathic and clairvoyant powers in describing what Muhammad felt, what happened, and what the terms of any phantom agreement might have been.

Muhammad Lived Like a King, With Wealth and Riches Galore from War They ask thee concerning the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war are for Allah and the Apostle" (Q. 8:1).[69] (Loc. 1204) I can assure you that nothing of what he plundered went to Allah. (Loc. 1208) The idiocy of the author’s interpretation here is hilarious. When the Quran speaks of “Allah and His messenger” being impacted in some way, that phrase embraces the whole Muslim community. Also, it goes without saying that nothing worldly in “spoils” “went to Allah”, but the literal translation is not the point. The wording of the Quran here means that this portion must be distributed as God commands to 121 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only avoid concentration of wealth (“so that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you “) and to help the neediest in the community (“the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers”). This is clarified in Quran 59:7, among other verses. To assert that this portion (1/5 per the Quran) was literally for Muhammad’s consumption and personal bling account is a very embarrassing claim indeed.

What is even more absurd is that history clearly and consistently recorded how Muhammad “lived an austere life” (Loc. 177), which the author also fully acknowledges, as I just quoted. So if all this wealth was directed towards Muhammad personally to feed his “narcissistic”, power-hungry ego, then where did it all go if he didn’t consume it – poof, into thin air? The author continually embarrasses himself by failing to address how his own basic facts directly and 100% contradict his critical claims elsewhere.

How could any rational or reasonably objective person commit such blatant logical blunders?

Muhammad Plundered and Looted – and a Flagrant Lie Proves It Islam has advanced through treachery. The following hadith makes clear that Muhammad and his companions were a bunch of bandits. (Loc. 1175) The poor traveler was killed for his camel. (Loc. 1198) These bombastic conclusions are in reference to the author’s sole cited fact to demonstrate that the objective of “raids” was simply “plunder” and “loot”. This cited fact is a full and lengthy quote from start to finish of hadith Muslim 19:4344 (per Loc. 1196, not reproduced here). I save this example almost for last as one of the “unhinged” claims because it illustrates how desperate the author is to make a point to support his hate narrative.

Here the author flagrantly lied in his misrepresentation of the cited fact just so that he could manipulate it to fit his propaganda message. How could he possibly do this when he quoted the entire hadith from the very start to the very finish? Simple. He just deliberately deleted any words and phrases inside the hadith that explain why a mysterious interloper was chased and killed. This deceit then allowed him to attribute an invented lie to explain why this event happened: apparently, just so that those greedy Moozlims could have a single camel as loot.

First of all, this was not part of a raid, as the author embarrassingly implies, and the event did not happen at random whatsoever. It actually happened during the well-known Batttle of Hawazin! Here are the words almost at the very beginning of the hadith that the author completely deleted from his invented version (which, by the way, also emphasizes that Muhammad fought in that battle too – a very inconvenient fact indeed): “We fought the Battle of Hawazin along with the messenger of Allah.”

The unrecognized man took food in the camp, mingled with Muslims in conversation, and then suddenly raced off on his camel. His suspicious actions clearly supported the conclusion that he was actually a spy and had found out some very valuable information. In fact, the hadith states this as the very reason for chasing him: “taking him for a spy”. But do we see these critical words in the author’s full transcription of this hadith? Nope. Absolutely not. Chasing down and killing a spy during an active battle would be 100% in compliance with the Just War Doctrine, and therefore justified. By contrast, Muslim “bandits” killing a random stranger just for his camel – and, of course, so that Islam can somehow “advance

122 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only through treachery” - sounds so much more compelling and juicy in supporting a hate narrative, doesn’t it?

Quran 9:123 Commands Muslims to “Murder” — and a Flagrant Lie Proves It Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.

(Q.9:123). (Loc. 2544, and repeated again at Loc. 6066) This grotesque mistranslation is not a simple oversight by the author. There is no other way to reasonably explain his deception here than to call it an outright lie. After “decades” dedicating his life to “exposing” Islam, he knows full well that the Arabic verb form here cannot even remotely be translated as “murder”. It simply means “fight”. I challenge the author to prove that he was not lying by citing one of the two translations that he said he was going to use throughout his book: Translations of the Quran in this book are either by Yusuf Ali or by Shakir. (Loc. 8250, footnote 6).

He can’t meet this challenge, because neither of these two translations use the word “murder”, which makes him guilty of exactly the same evil, lies and grand, unholy deception that he is attributing to Muslims, except this time to further his cause of “eradicating Islam”.

One of the translations that the author claimed to be using was from Yusuf Ali. Quran 9:123 is actually translated quite accurately in that version. It says fight those "who gird you about" from among the kafirs. This phrase, which clearly describes a defensive position, was completely excluded from the author’s mistranslation above. Note also – contrary once again to the author’s mistranslation – how it does not say fight all kafirs, but only the subset who “gird you about” due to the Arabic preposition “mina” (meaning “of” or “from among”) before the word “kafirs”.

The verse also references "firmness" rather than "harshness", since the Arabic root word means "firm and unyielding", implying resistance against an aggressive force rather than the active, outward force implied by the mistranslated "harshness". This is made abundantly clear by the phrase “let them find in you unyielding firmness”. The only way the enemy could “find” such a quality in Muslims is if they were coming towards the Muslims first to “find” it, i.e., as the aggressors and attackers. This defensive meaning becomes even clearer in the context of the verses around this verse, as well as the historical context itself, where the Muslims were surrounded by an overwhelming army of 10,000 who came to attack them at Medina and laid siege to the city (i.e., "girded them about") before doing so.

Therefore, this verse is 100% in compliance with the universal principles of the Just War Doctrine. It is almost shocking how drastically the correct translation changes the meaning from the grotesque mistranslation of the author above, from one of extreme injustice and intolerance to one of universally accepted justice in resisting oppressive intolerance and aggression.

There are similar verses describing violence in war noted at this Loc. 2544 and elsewhere, and I could easily debunk the author’s interpretation of implied injustice in those too. However, since they relate directly to the upcoming debate topic on alleged “violent injustice” in the Quran, I will defer his further embarrassment until that time. I only addressed Quran 9:123 to highlight how desperate the author is to create a hate narrative that is so easily proven false and brazenly deceptive. He will not hesitate to 123 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only outright lie if he thinks it will increase the hatred that he can project onto Islam. In his delusional narcissistic mind, he thought he could get away with this lie, but instead he got caught, once again, buck naked with his pants down.

The Big Picture: The “Big Lie” is the Author’s Self-Proclaimed “Shock Therapy” Perhaps the best way to sum up the unhinged lunacy of the author’s own words above is with the author’s own words: When sane people follow an insane man, they act insanely. (Loc. 4215) Big lies are so outlandish that they often startle the listener. Most people are not equipped to process them adequately. When the lie is colossal, the average person is left to wonder how anyone can have the audacity, the impudence to say such a thing. (Loc. 5167) Unhinged Islamophobia is the inevitable insanity expressed by those who believe and act upon the “Big Lies” of the author above. How could any other reaction logically follow? The second quote is a very apt description of this book and the only reason that anyone will believe in it: The book itself is a “Big Lie” that is far too big and shocking not to be true. Unfortunately for the author, it only works in shocking idiots, bigots, and the willfully ignorant into his cult-like group, as can be seen by a cursory review of his drooling devotee loons on his web site forum.

The author has stated multiple times that he is a big proponent of "shock therapy" “to help Muslims see the truth”. The “Big Lie” is exactly how he implements this shock therapy, again and again, with endless repetition. Unfortunately for him, he has run into someone who has become completely immune to all “shock therapy”, who can see right through it as clear as day, and who is anything but ignorant – in other words, his worst nightmare. Even the author’s inspirational teachers quoted below would be hopeless clowns in debating me. But they would have at least been smart enough not to debate me at all– not because I am a better debater, but because they knew that propaganda was only meant to be repeated, never defended in serious debate as “truth”: [Hitler]: “The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Hitler was an expert on this subject. He was a master of lies. (Loc. 5153) Let not your dislike of Hitler obfuscate the truth of these words. We must give credit where credit is due. (Loc. 5163) In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in the little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. (Loc. 5158) – Adolf Hitler Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

--Adolf Hitler 124 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

XII.

A REFUTATION OF THE AUTHOR’S WELL-ARGUED CLAIMS

THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – NO SUCH ARGUMENTS FOUND.

XIII.

CONCLUSION Lies Have a Funny Way of Tripping Over Themselves – Especially the “Big Lies”

Call it a guilty pleasure, but I find all of this Islamophobe schizophrenia and hyperbolic irrationality incredibly entertaining. The author recycles the same hackneyed, juvenile propaganda churned out ad nauseum by this hate industry while tripping over his own lies in the process, just like so many other Islamophobes do. But what about the really “Big Lies”? Is the trip-up on those just as “BIG”? You betcha.

For example, if we just take a few steps back from all this propaganda and look at it as a whole, we see a most hilarious picture indeed. It’s like a Monty Python skit and slapstick parody rolled into one. On the one hand, Muslims are supposedly “primitive”, “stuck in the seventh century”, and just plain “savages”.

Yet on the other hand – at the very same time – they are somehow also extremely sophisticated and fully capable of secretly infiltrating and taking over entire universities, the mainstream media, the White House, and even the world’s only superpower via some sort of magical and unexplained “stealth jihad” Kung Fu. This stealth superpower, in turn, is protected by an invisible “taqiyya” force field and communications infrastructure that non-Muslims somehow can’t penetrate, no matter how obsessively they try. It is so sophisticated and powerful, in fact, that it has so far completely eluded (with apparent ease) the NSA’s massive dragnet on all digital communications worldwide.

So how could anyone possibly reconcile this oxymoronic propaganda mess of primitive super-genius? If no one else, Wile E. Coyote definitely wants to know. Let me posit one “whisper theory”, which is as good as any other at this point. Maybe – just maybe – secret jeehawd messages are sent amongst the 1.5+ billion conspiring Moozlims on earth via genetically-modified Camel Express vehicles travelling through subspace positronic wormholes. The primitive super-tech. involved is not well understood, of course, but the whisper in “counterjihadist” circles is that this communications infrastructure is being secretly dubbed by the Moozlamic Intergalactic Empire as the “TaqiyyaNet”.

But how exactly would those conspirators from the dastardly Moozlamic Empire (Earth Division) then proceed to carry-out their devious Dr. Evil master plan while staying true to their identity as primitive super-genius savages? With grunt-activated ray guns perhaps? No one knows for sure, but it’s 125 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only apparently scary as Hell. The screaming “CIVILIZATION JIHAD!!!” banshee Zudhi Jasser, along with his comedy troupe, will tell you all about it, but even they can’t actually explain it.

So far, absolutely no one – especially Islamophobes – can explain this schizophrenic caricature to me, even though I keep asking. In the meantime, trying to digest this much schizophrenic mass hysteria and propaganda is enough to give any truth seeker a splitting headache, which is why so many just give up trying so quickly. This much stupid literally hurts. Apparently, it is much easier just to be schizophrenic and believe in both propaganda messages, no matter how contradictory they are. This applies to the ignorant, but, even more so, to the willfully ignorant.

For the willing devotees of ignorance, there’s no shortage of hate Kool-Aid in this book to flush the mind of painful, conflicting rationality. That, to me, sums up the most important purpose of the author’s book. It is a ready-made batch of “Big Lies” – big enough to quench even the most aching thirst for hate, as long as one is willing to check his mind at the door first to lap it all up. The fact that this Kool-Aid is filled with nothing but vacuous, artificial ingredients is irrelevant to those who long for its taste and who enjoy the satiation of its hate engorging their bellies.

Our Messiah of “truth” is a Narcissistic, Self-Deluded Failure Such juvenile propaganda can really only be appealing to those who have a hunger to swallow the Islamophobia hate narrative whole. But, of course, the author claims otherwise. Our resident Messiah is under the hilarious delusion that his “truth” is somehow persuasive to those who don’t already agree or want to agree with him – if only they would read his book, they would be “saved”. He even claims to have converted “thousands” of Muslims to his point of view, with “thousands” more converted by those “thousands”, and so on. Yet let’s look at some basic facts here to validate his claim: 







He has a pathetic Twitter following (<4,700) for someone who has supposedly had such a huge impact on the world and believes that “the insight contained [in this book] will end this religion” and “those who read this book will no longer believe in Islam” (Loc. 464).

He has published only one book in his decades’ long anti-Islam career, and it has a laughable Amazon ranking below the oblivion level of 425,000+. Anything above 100k is essentially dead in the water as far as sales go. He is not even in the same ballpark compared to the likes of Robert Spencer, the terrorist-linked Zionist golden boy.

His global web site traffic ranking (per Alexa.org) is also in the tank, and frankly a laughingstock relative to his messianic goal of “ending this religion”: 444,000 for AliSina.org and 120,000 for FaithFreedom.org (the better ranking of the latter is almost solely due to the activity on the echo chamber discussion forum, predominantly by a small cadre of devotees).

Instead of “thousands” of devotees and “converts” on his web site forum, one sees the same fawning, drooling morons posting over and over in a groupthink circle of hate, no different really than jihadwatch and so many other anti-Islam hate sites.

In short, the author has proven himself to be a pathetic, unaccomplished failure after decades of messianic effort.

Yet that doesn’t stop him from narcissistically arrogating to himself bombastic predictions of his future importance, phony accomplishments, and a manufactured reputation. One example of the latter is his 126 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only nonexistent “honorary” “doctoral” degree. No wonder he was so furious and ranting endlessly about Ayaan Hirsi Ali not getting her “honorary” doctoral degree after her genocidal hatred and militancy against Muslims was exposed in her own words. But this is nothing new for Islamophobes. They all tend to froth at the mouth about their phony “expert” credentials, which have been thoroughly exposed and debunked in this report on the top 25 Islamophobes, among several other reports and articles: http://www.mpac.org/publications/policy-papers/not-qualified-exposing-pseudo-experts-on-islam.php I had to chuckle a bit in noticing that the author (a self-proclaimed “scholar of Islam”) couldn’t even make it onto the top 25 Islamophobes list – not even a single “honorary” mention in the whole report!

Apostate Poster Children Frauds?

But what about the author’s handful of apostate poster children? Aren’t these at least some evidence of his “success”? Well, we already know what a liar the author is from his exposed claims above, so why would he suddenly be honest now? According to someone who investigated one of these so-called “apostates” named “Shakila Khan”, it appears that “she” was likely a fraudulent convert, perhaps made up by the author himself. See the analysis at this link: http://exposingsina.wordpress.com/category/fraud/ What motivation other than narcissistic, bandwagon-propaganda desperation could drive someone to make up converts in order to make new converts? It is extremely funny and ironic, by the way, how the author falsely attributes (per above) “making new converts” to Muslims as their “main objective”, when in reality this is nothing but a projection of the author’s dedicated lifetime objective, for which he has proven himself to be a total failure. So much so, he apparently has to invent anecdotal converts that most likely don’t even exist just to save face. It is even more hilarious and ironic how much the author gnashes his teeth over converts to Islam and how quickly the Muslim population is growing, just like a fanatical, proselytizing zealot would do.

Meanwhile, I, personally, like all the Muslims I know, couldn’t care less about apostates. “Good riddance” is how I would sum up my view of them, which is also how Muhammad summed it up when someone apostatized right in front of him. In other words, to them their way; and to me, mine. Yup, there’s that “live and let live” message again from that “intolerant” Quran (sura 109).

Does this mean that I am making the ridiculous argument that apostates from Islam practically don’t exist? Of course not, even though that is what the author falsely accuses all Muslims of believing: …Muslims remain adamant in their belief that nobody ever really leaves Islam. (Loc. 4853) Apostates from Islam, like from every religion, are hardly a rarity at all. They are a dime a dozen. Sorry, Ali Sina, you are not so special or heroic after all. What I am saying is that the vast majority of any “converts” that the author may have been involved with were already apostates without any of the author’s “help”. They had already made their choice to reject Islam.

The only “help” that the author really provided was to offer such “apostates” a mountain of lies, logical fallacies and endless confirmation biased claims as hate Kool-Aid for their parched minds and empty souls. This is the “nourishment” that such apostates crave in order to hate Islam and Muslims enough to 127 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only be able to break free at a primitive, tribal level from the cultural and familial baggage that they have been trying so desperately to leave behind. They are constantly in the process of leaving their tribal identity, so they are desperate to find some maladjusted solace in a new “ex-Muslim tribe” to fill that void. Of course, they will call it something much more cerebral and unemotional than “tribe”, like “Council” (e.g., CEMB); or something much more honorable and inclusive than genocidal hatred, like “Faith Freedom”. But the tribal function and schizophrenia-therapy purpose are the same.

In effect, these “ex-Muslims” become sycophantic co-dependents of the author so that he can walk them like children through his “Seven Valleys” of apostasy trauma. And there is no shortage of nonMuslim bigots eager to join them in that walk too, in order to help confirm their own hatred from someone who “escaped” and climbed over the “taqiyya” wall. One of the author’s devotees on Twitter sums up the ideological adulation of their new philosopher-king hate daddy quite succinctly: So true ,@AliSina_FFI sounds like Voltaire. (per https://twitter.com/gwen4stacy/status/451448617107079168 ) Ah, yes, he sounds just like Voltaire indeed. Any sane person can see that in all of the quotes above!

Yet more evidence against the author’s fraudulent claim with respect to all his “apostate” poster children – which is not just probable this time, but certain – is that many of them were never really Muslims to begin with. Their “apostasy” was not from Islam, but rather just from their family/tribe.

One example of that is here, where the individual admits this right up front as his first paragraph (my emphasis in bold): My breach with Islam started as far back as I could discern things. More to the point, I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family. (per http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/apostates-of-islam/islam-was-not-for-me/ ) And here is another one making a similar admission: I hadn’t lost my faith; but then, I never really had it. (per http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/apostates-of-islam/a-loss-of-faith-and-the-finding-ofhope/ ) And still more evidence against the author’s fraudulent claim with respect to all his “apostate” poster children is that almost all (if not all) of them are not even “his”. Based on a cursory review and random text search of the list of apostate case studies on his web site, the bulk of them just appear to be individuals who made their choice without any reference to the author’s work whatsoever. In politics, manufacturing false popularity to garner support and authoritative credibility is called “stuffing the ballot box”. Here I would just call it yet another facet of the author’s narcissistic Messiah Complex.

Incidentally, another distinct pattern in these case studies is how most individuals supposedly became “apostates” around University age, which is when they first had a chance to physically separate from their family. In my view, based also on the doctrinally vacuous (or grossly inaccurate) content of almost all of these “apostate” testimonials, the common message is that the “apostasy” was not so much from Islam, but from a culturally suffocating tribal family identity.

128 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only Finally, the last piece of evidence against the author’s fraudulent claim with respect to all his “apostate” poster children is that the bulk of his anti-Islam devotees on his discussion forum don’t appear to be apostates at all. They are mostly just a bunch of craven bigots who have crawled out of the Internet cesspool in search of hate fodder. Ultimately, the author is just a messianic fool who created yet another Islamophobia echo chamber to make himself believe that the world is actually listening to his message of hate.

Given that the world has no interest in listening to him, the author’s so-called “feature film” movie will also be a spectacular flop, just like his book, even if he finds a big enough fool to finally fund it. When that last messianic hope of his snaps, I predict that he will too, with Plan X soon to follow.

Hatred in a Cage, Burning with Rage, Desperate to Engage Based on the author’s vitriolic response in defense of Hirsi Ali, along with his Final Solution, I sincerely believe that there is one thing that the author hates as much as Islam and Muslims. It is having his genocidal hatred and militancy against Islam and Muslims publicly silenced in the same way as hers has been. It must especially gall him to know how hilariously irrational it makes him look to advocate the “eradication of Islam” without any militant ethnic cleansing whatsoever – “without violence” even! He just has to sit there and shut up while we all laugh uproariously at him advocating demonstrably irrational and irreconcilable objectives.

I believe that the author is itching to finally scream out Plan X, but he knows that he can’t, or else he would discredit and disgrace himself just like Ayaan Hirsi Ali did when she gave in to the temptation to finally just spit it out. So all he can do is vicariously endorse militant genocide by defending her (and similar others) while parroting the laughable propaganda that she is “being silenced”. He is too scared of stepping into the sunlight with his hatred like she did. He knows full well that he would suffer the same ignominious fate of being pilloried and humiliated by overwhelming public outrage.

That said, the temptation is huge, and I don’t believe the author will be able to keep that much hatred and rage in his cage forever, especially when he is the one with the key to finally let himself out. Once he inevitably comes out of that “genocidal closet” like Hirsi Ali did, with all his bare-naked hatred exposed, he knows there will be no turning back. So, for now, he remains superficially self-employed as a Messiah of “truth”. But when he finally realizes and accepts what an abject failure he has become after decades of effort, he will have no choice but to put on another Messiah hat instead. No worries, though, since he can still invoke Jesus whenever he feels those Messiah “narcotic juices” (Loc. 4247) flowing: Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Luke 12:34) It looks like the author is already trying on a [sic]k new hat to see how it fits. Make no mistake what his true and only vision of the future really looks like today. The Messiah of “truth” – nay, the Prophet of Annihilation – has spoken: Many prophet's [sic] propagandized the end of humanity. I prophecy [sic] the annihilation of Muslims.(per https://twitter.com/AliSina_FFI/status/453006339954843648 ) 129 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only My Review is Still Incomplete, but My Job Here is Done – At Least for Now We have seen the lies stacked upon fallacies stacked upon more lies that this author vomits, all in the hope that at least some of his parroted propaganda would stick. Ironically, I didn’t even get through half of my notes and highlights in this “review”, but the case against this book’s credibility is already overwhelming. That said, without exception, there is not one of my remaining notes and highlights that would not do the same in undermining this book’s credibility still further, if that is even possible. And the same can be said of everything else that I didn’t even bother to highlight that might have been remotely noteworthy.

After some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and I think I passed that point long ago already.

Adding on yet more factual and logical indictments against this book’s claims and the author’s credibility is never going to create a real argument out of thin air from the author. It simply doesn’t even exist in the whole book. The only purpose in continuing further would be for entertainment value alone. That may be reason enough later, but, for now, what I have covered is more than enough logical lampooning for one “book review”.

On that note, I would like to thank the author for putting on such a great clown show. He has his head so far up his ass, he’s wearing his colon as a bonnet, thinking it’s the crown of a Messiah. He proudly trumpets the repugnant stench of evil from which he will deliver “millions” to salvation through nothing but the “truth” of his “Word”, as glorified by his imagined apostate victimhood. But, in reality, his “Word” is nothing but the flatulence and sewage from his own innards, soiling his bigoted face while we all laugh at him, hysterically.

Now THAT is one funny clown Messiah! May the Truth…and the laughter…set you free.

130 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014

DRAFT: For Review Only ** Yet Another Debate Invitation to Robert Spencer ** I have repeatedly invited Robert Spence on Twitter to join in on my upcoming debate with Ali Sina.

However, he refuses even to acknowledge my invitation. He quickly – and without warning –blocks anyone who challenges him, unless it is a popular Muslim he can bully in order to elevate his phony scholar status in the eyes of his sycophants. I know that he must continue to see my invitation via our conversation with others he hasn’t blocked, but yet he still doesn’t reply.

Therefore, please retweet and forward my debate invitation to this coward as much as possible. My challenge is both credible and worthy given my complete humiliation of the author and his book above.

It is even more so because Robert Spencer gave this absolutely glowing and unqualified endorsement of the author’s book, which now effectively makes it his humiliation too: A blistering honest, thoroughly documented, and piercingly insightful investigation of the root causes within Islam of the fanaticism and violence that today threatens the entire world. Should be required reading at the State Department and the White House. (Loc. 36) The author must have also thought very highly of this esteemed endorsement, since he made it #1, at the very top of his list, out of all his hate sympathizer endorsements. Incidentally, Robert Spencer no doubt meant to say “the Obama-free White House”, since he must have read the author’s “birther” and Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy claims against Obama. But we’ll just let that little oversight slide.

I am not even asking Robert Spencer to defend this laughingstock of a book, but just to join the debate on one or more of the four debate topics noted in the Introduction. If nothing else, I am pleading for him to save me from the tedium of debating a clown who is incapable of factually analyzing the Quran.

Unfortunately, however, Robert Spencer will probably continue to avoid me because he is scared. He’s a coward. He is not scared of me personally, of course, since I am just an anonymous nobody. He is scared of unknown debate threats, and he is scared of being publicly crushed by a nobody. Suffering such a public indignity would endanger his extremely lucrative funding from a small group of racist nationalist donors to the tune of over six figures each and every year.

Based on his past behavior, Robert Spencer is only willing to debate either 1) loony Muslims (i.e., “useful idiots”) to reinforce his hate narrative about who the “real” Muslims are or 2) popular scholars with reputations that he can leech off of like a parasite. For the latter, all he has to do is force such a scholar into a draw (or debate cancellation) with ad hominem bullying and an endless repetition of juvenile association fallacies. He “wins” every time, not with facts and logic, but simply by dragging real scholars into his sewer. A classic example is his slandering of any and every popular Muslim who challenges him on Twitter as a “supporter of jihad terror”, which of course is a flagrant and demonstrable lie.

By contrast, not only do I have no scholarly reputation to leech off of, but ad hominem attacks don’t tend to work so well on anonymous nobodies like me who stand on nothing but facts and logic.

Moreover, I have always unconditionally condemned all terrorism, so his standard parlor trick accusation would only make him look foolish. The grand irony, of course, is that Robert Spencer promotes terrorism by fomenting extreme hatred and by validating irrational terrorist logic.

Once again, I hereby challenge Robert Spencer to join in on my debate with Ali Sina. Why does this coward continue to avoid me? Does he not think his “truth” is strong enough to withstand criticism?

131 Author: Chameleon_X

Last Updated: May 9, 2014