A Critique of Islam (and why it's important)

The criticism of Islam happening online and offline has stirred much controversy. It’s caused extremist groups (such as the English Defence League) to violently attack Muslim communities. It’s sadly enforced societal prejudices against Muslims and has painted a negative picture of those who practice Islam.

Let me be clear: this article is not an attack on Muslims as individual people. Content of character should measure a person; their actions, behaviours and treatment of others. A person who practices Islam deserves no less respect than an atheist, Pagan, Christian, or Hindu, to the extent that they are respectful and polite in turn.

Nonetheless, it is wilfully ignorant and naïve of some leftist politicians to blindly describe Islam as ‘a religion of peace.’ The first point of contradiction to this statement is the Koran itself. Written in an aggressive and violent style, the Koran insists that Islam be practiced by all, and that those who do not submit to the will of Allah deserve to be killed.

The Koran condones violence against non-believers

Islam’s literal Arabic translation issubmission’. It enforces Islam as the ruling ideology; an ideology that demands total submission to Allah’s word.

The Koran contains around 109 verses stating that non-believers should be killed, e.g.:

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.’

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

If Islam were a peaceful religion, it would not force its beliefs upon its followers with death as the only alternative. 

A peaceful ideology allows its followers the option of leaving or disagreeing. When Mao became president of China, he murdered all of those who went against the Communist Party. When Hitler came into power, he murdered anyone that dared challenge the Nazi Party. When Stalin took over Russia, he murdered those that disagreed with the views of his party.

Sharia Law

Sharia Law is the main law by which Islam should be practiced. It is described as ‘divine law’ by which all must follow. Some of the tenants of Sharia Law are:
  • An apostate (someone who renounces their Islamic faith) deserves to be killed
  • Jihad, the fighting of non-believers until/unless they become Muslim
  • Homosexuals must be killed. 
  • Those who commit adultery (male or female) must be stoned to death
The treatment of women under Sharia Law is terrible. 

If a woman is sexually assaulted, she must have two witnesses; ideally two men, or one man and two woman (because a man’s view is worth twice a woman’s).

Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women."

In Islam, women are treated as men’s property. A woman cannot leave her house without her husband’s permission. A man must wash his hands after touching a woman. A man is permitted to have multiple wives (but a woman cannot have multiple husbands). A man may inherit twice of what his sister inherits. A man may hit his wife is she ‘commits rebelliousness.’ A woman is obliged to sleep with her husband whenever he wants her to.

It is logically incompatible to call yourself a feminist and support Islam, yet many western ‘feminists’ claim that Islam is a ‘feminist religion’ when it is evidently misogynistic. 

Je Suis Charlie

In 2015, several journalists and cartoonists who worked at the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, were attacked and murdered. This caused a great uproar across the world as thousands stood with the journalists who absolutely did not deserve to be murdered for drawing a few cartoons. Likewise, members of the Islamic community were outraged, but also not happy that their prophet had been depicted as the subject of ridicule.

People were murdered for drawing cartoons.

At a surface level, that would surely be described as horrific and uncalled for by most. But because these cartoons satirised Islam, it caused great debate. Why? Why does Islam, an allegedly peaceful ideology, condone the murder of those who make fun of its prophet?

Because Muhammad is the epitome of perfection. He is Allah’s chosen messenger; the example by which all Muslims should aspire to be.

Muhammad spent thirteen years preaching Islam to Meccans, before moving to Medina and attacking those who did not follow the word of Allah.

If Islam was truly a peaceful religion then Muslims would simply laugh good-naturedly and get on with their lives. They wouldn’t care. They wouldn’t get so wound up over cartoons because they would view their religion and strength of Allah as above that. (For surely if you strongly believe in something, you won't care about other people's petty opinions? Isn't your faith strong enough to stand those who disagree with it? Why be so concerned with what others think, to the point of murdering them?)

But this cannot be so, because Muhammad condoned the murder of anyone who dared cross the word of Allah. Murdering people who make fun of or mock the prophet is justified in the Koran.

Politicians, artists, other religious figures are mocked all the time. I’ve seen countless unflattering pictures of Jesus on greetings cards and the like. But hell hath no fury like a devout Muslim who hears his prophet spoken of in shame.

"Muhammad is a narcissist, a [child molester], a mass murderer,
a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman
a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter."

This quote is from a former Muslim, Ali Sina, who offered $50,000
to anyone who could prove this wrong based on Islamic texts.

The reward has gone unclaimed.


Members of ISIS, Al Shabab, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda follow a literal interpretation of the Koran. They are the true followers of Islam; the ones who practice the messages that Muhammad spread when he went to Medina and conquered the city. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex-follower of Islam and advocate for woman’s rights, stated in an interview that members of ISIS follow Muhammad’s messages and teachings as spread in Medina.

One of the arguments against criticism of the Koran is that the Bible also contains violent messages and condemnation of homosexuals. This is true, but it is an irrelevant argument because it does not change the fact that Islam is an ideology of violence. It does not change the Koran or gain any credence as a point because the Bible and the Koran are two separate books. Saying something is ‘just as bad’ as something as doesn’t change the fact that the original something is also ‘bad’.

But for argument’s sake, let’s also accept that the Bible is an ancient book filled with slavery, incest, genocide and the like. Why is Christianity not being ‘targeted’ here?
  • Christianity is not currently being used on such a mass global scale to enforce its viewpoints among the masses.
  • Christians that follow their book down to a fine point do not form militant groups and murder innocent people. (A Christian that takes a literal approach to the Bible is known as a 7th day Adventist.)
  • Christian terror attacks tend to happen by lone terrorists, not by an organized group with the power to destroy buildings or snatch away lives at any moment. 
  • Women who follow Christianity are not forced to cover themselves from head to toe. Nuns that do so do out of choice (to become a nun and follow Christ’s word) not force.
  • The 'prophet' in Christianity, Jesus Christ, was a peaceful hippie carpenter who (allegedly) performed miracles. He was not a war lord and he did not consummate a relationship with a child.
  • Christianity went through one of the most important phases in the history of human thought - the European Enlightenment. The Enlightenment enforced freedom and secularism, making Jews and Christians more tolerant to other points of view. 
Yes, before this Christianity enforced many of its authoritarian values on people. But post-Enlightenment, we have seen this decline rapidly. This is why countries that were once governed by a Christian ideology have become more secular; the Enlightenment pushed for libertarian ideals when it came to religion. If Islam went through its own Enlightenment, this reign of Islamic terror would probably come to an end. 

This article contains an interesting paragraph: 

Christian terrorism doesn’t define Christianity, any more than Islamic terrorism should be considered to define Muslims. However, it’s entirely unreasonable and dishonest to deny that terrorism based on beliefs derived from Christian teachings exists. Yes, Christian teachings vary. A lot of Christian ideologies are beautiful and loving. Others are harmful and terroristic.

Now, substitute Islam:

It’s entirely unreasonable and dishonest to deny that terrorism based on beliefs derived from Islamic teachings exists. Yes, Islamic teachings vary. A lot of Islamic ideologies are beautiful and loving. Others are harmful and terroristic.

Why does the above sentence stir up so much controversy?

Martin Luther King followed Christianity and preached peace. Malcolm X followed Islam and preached self-defence and stated 'we should not be afraid to meet violence with violence.' He was much more militant and rigid in his mind-set (just like the Prophet Muhammad, who insisted his followers be equipped with guns as a form of ‘self-defence’).

It was only once Malcolm X was kicked out of the Nation of Islam (whose members killed him) that he embraced integration and accepted that people of all ethnic backgrounds and religions/non-religions should coexist peacefully. Unfortunately by then it was too late.

When Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door to spread the word of Christ, if you disagree they walk away. A Muslim, by right of their book, is allowed to kill you.

Liberal Hypocrites

Patriarchy, homophobia, gun violence, capital punishment, female submission, theocracy, nationalism – these are concepts all typically associated with far-right wing ideals. Is it a surprise that Islam also advocates these views?

Why do those on the left proudly criticise white Christian conservatives, and yet praise radical followers of Islam when their philosophies are similar?

It makes no sense.

The only plausible explanation is that because Islam is commonly practiced in the Middle East and Africa, leftists feel it would be ‘racist’ to criticise them due to many followers being of brown skin. Sadly, this mentality closes off the truth: that Islam and white conservatism share a lot in common, thus it makes no sense for leftists to praise one and criticise the other due to something as shallow as skin colour.

A country under Sharia Law is the extremist Republican American ideal. Where men rule and women stay at home and submit to their husbands. Gay people can be killed. (Not even imprisoned; killed.) The country is ruled by a ‘holy’ textbook rather than secular democracy. The country puts Islamic values above everything, hence being anti-internationalist. The country does not allow people to drink alcohol or use drugs recreationally.

This is why it is essential to look at things for what they are, not for what you ‘perceive’ them to be.

If Islam is such a peaceful ideology, why are many so afraid to speak out against it? Why is it safer to speak out against it anonymously than publicly?

I advise anyone who really wants to see if Islam is peaceful or not to read the Koran. The Koran is solid proof that Islam is a violent, fascistic ideology – all the evidence is available there.

Moving Forward?

Spirituality and religion bring many joy and comfort. Praying and reciting calming mantras can all be done so without following a book that promotes fascistic ideals. One can easily worship a deity, wash their feet before prayer and fast without following a book written thousands of years ago by war lords. We are living in the 21st century. We have let go of so much from the past – slavery, racial segregation, fighting one another in caves.

Why must we hold on to prehistoric texts that preach violence and hatred?

'Calling Islam a religion of peace is dangerous and reductive' spoken by a gay Muslim:


  1. In addition, Islam was spread by conquest and force, from the initial onslaught against Persia and North Africa, then into Iberia, central Asia, India, Anatolia, and the Balkans.
    By contrast, most Christian expansion, and all of it for the fist several centuries, was peaceful. It was spread by word of mouth, by example, and by missionary activity. Likewise, Buddhism spread into Central Asia, China and Japan, and Southeast Asia by peaceful means.

    1. Exactly, well said. (Although Christianity was later spread by means of force during colonialism and slavery, but as mentioned in the post, that doesn't change the fact that Islam tends to be spread through violence.)

  2. Islam is not a spiritual religion. Islam is a completely distinct, and distinctly complete civilization dedicated to manifesting their geopolitical ambition of imposing theocracy over all mankind, and literally exterminating all who resist.


Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Negative Aspects of Twelve-Step Programs