Customer Reviews

Why I Am Not a Muslim

5 star:		(121)
4 star:		(37)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(89)

 

 

In 1990 'Free Inquiry Magazine' published an article called "Why I Am Not A Jew" by David Dvorkin. In its introduction the following words appeared:

"Atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers - call them whatever they prefer, virtually all of them share one very large blind spot: they are almost all ex-Christians, and therefore they measure their shiny new non-belief not against belief in general, but against Christianity in particular. It is thus ex-Christians who write the literature that, to the world at large, represents the views of non-believers. Literature that is specifically intended to present the arguments against religious belief tends in fact to present the arguments against Christian belief."

To be sure, Dvorkin's claim has a very solid foundation in fact: most of the modern anti-religion and atheist doctrines and theories stem from a disillusionment and deconstruction of the Christian faith. From Voltaire to Bertrand Russell ("Why I Am Not A Christian", 1927), the main object of scrutiny and scorn has been the Gospel of Christ, a set of tenets and moral teachings Voltaire famously referred to as the "most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Fortunately, for Voltaire, there has been a vast body of research and testimony to substantiate his sacrilegious claims. Unfortunately for Voltaire, not all of them are directed at the Christian faith.

The Eastern faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism) make no claims of exclusivity, i.e. that salvation can only be found in their dogmas. The Western faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), however, do. Each proclaims itself the utter and infallible word of God and seeks to subjugate the world to its will. That's where Ibn Warraq comes in. Like Dvorkin's essay and Russell's famous speech, Warraq takes the standard of Reason, Historical Scrutiny, and Speculation and applies it to Islam, the religion he inherited from his ancestors. What emerges is what can only be termed as a pioneering work, a revolutionary and giant body of research and analysis which stands as the most comprehensive, critical, and detailed look at the revelation, the history, the tradition, and the culture that is Islam.

Make no mistake about it: this book is a devastating piece of anti-Islamic propaganda, an unapologetic denunciation of a religion that has become a cultural and moral wasteland. It is with profound regret and unmitigated rage that Warraq assails Islam for serving as the impetus to History's worst human rights record: the suffocation of Reason and Freedom of Expression, the subjugation of Jews and Christians, the dehumanization of pagans, slaves, and even non-Arab Muslims, and a Holocaust against Womankind that continues unchallenged because of its self-declared 'divine' sanction. It will always baffle me that a majority of this world, a majority that happens to be female, is condemned, oppressed, and exploited by the very same ideology that tells them that their salvation is only attainable through self-effacement, and that they comply, reconciling themselves with such blatant notions of cruelty and misogyny. Such is the malicious legacy of the Patriarchal Faiths. I am not entirely convinced that Islam will survive the mounting call to reform, but what is apparent is that it will be Muslim women who intiate and maintain any such progressive reformation.

"Why I Am Not A Muslim" is important because it looks critically and historically at the whole of "Islam", concluding that it is nothing more than a 7th century Arabian narcissist's attempt to mimic Judeo-Christian monotheism with some Samaritan/Sabian overtones and a whole host of pagan rituals thrown in to make it more appealing to hordes of 'unbelievers'. Did you know, for example, that pagan Arabs worshipped Allah, placing him high in the hierarchy of their deities? That Muhammad was rejected by all the monotheists of his homeland (Jews, Christians, Sabians, Hanafis) before claiming his own 'perfect' monotheism? That the pagans had their own pilgrimage rituals which included running between holy sites and casting stones, as does the Muslim Hajj ritual? That the parallels between the prophethoods of Moses and Muhammad are too identical to have been distinct? This is but a minute sampling of what the book offers. Warraq's conclusions are indeed audacious and he blasphemes in virtually every sentence; however, it is difficult not to agree with his conclusions because they are based on historical accounts and not theologically inspired ones. Warraq examines not only the expected subjects (Muhammad, the Koran, the Origins of Islam, the status of Muslim Women and religious minorities) but some unlikely ones as well: the relationship between Islam and Totalitarianism, the compatibility of Islam with Democracy and Human Rights, the influence of Greek Science on Muslim Culture and, probably most telling of all, the history of atheists and freethinkers in Islamic civilizations. Truly, he has assembled an awesome body of research, and the wealth of information which resides in its pages makes it a valuable tool not only in Islamic critique but also in terms of the only subject that really matters: human nature and the ways of human thought. Ultimately, Warraq declares that Islam is just another name for the Arab Imperialism the peninsula witnessed between the 7th and 9th centuries.

Reading "Why I Am Not A Muslim" was a profoundly eye opening experience, even for someone like me who comes from a Sunni Turkish background. For example, I knew, as most people do, that Muhammad was a skilled general and a charismatic politician. I knew that he had fought in wars to defend his people, and, as happens in war, he killed some of his opponents. In spite of this, the image in my mind of Muhammad was always that of a gentle, reflective individual, in effect a Bedouin Jesus. According to Warraq and his sources, a completely disparate image emerges: gone is the humble messenger of God, and in his place is raised a merciless, bloodthirsty warlord, a man who spread the word of God by threatening lives instead of appealing to spirituality. A man who butchered 900 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe, taking the women and children as slaves and keeping the chief's daughter, Saffiya, among his collection of wives. He had hundreds of political opponents assassinated and looted their material and sacred resources. He had a mother of five killed while she was suckling her newborn. He had between 15 and 25 wives, and perhaps countless concubines. Here is a man who, at the age of 51, consummated with a nine-year-old girl, his child bride Aisha, whom he married when she was six (yes, six). The amazing thing is these accounts cannot be dismissed as `racist orientalism' for they are themselves corroborated by the Islamic tradition. Whether or not this tradition is reliable (or even credible) is a separate issue, for we have scant evidence directly linked to the life of Muhammad (or, as he was known to his tribesmen before his prophet days, Abul Kassim) but it is the tradition upon which the Islamic foundation is laid and is the only one we are given to consider.

Like Warraq, I too am an ex-Muslim, though I excised my Islamic identity several years before I had ever heard of "Why I Am Not A Muslim". I picked it up out of sheer curiosity and amazement that someone had dared to compose such a tome. I thought that if an ex-Muslim was courageous enough to take Islam head-on, in spite of what had happened to Salman Rushdie after the publication of "The Satanic Verses" (a book which is comparatively much kinder to Islam), then I, as someone who understood his positions and shared his dismay, had an obligation to read it. I would thereby recommend it to anyone with an interest in Islam, though it seems unlikely (and understandably so) that any Muslim would ever consider reading it.

Liberal intellectuals in the west are taken to task in the final chapter, but it is a criticism which must be considered as a double-edged sword for both Warraq's anti-Islamism and his Humanism; I can empathize with his frustrations. Islamic fundamentalists are ideologically similar to conservative right-wingers: if you have any doubts, look at the completely illogical and self-serving justifications offered by George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden for their voluntary wars- both claim God is on their side and both seek support by playing to the fears and ignorance of the masses. They are, however, politically opposed to each other (it's called OIL). Leftist intellectuals have made heavy allowances for the understanding and acceptance of Islam and other 'backward' cultures, offering some deeply convoluted apologies for its inhumanity in an attempt at hypertolerant inclusion. As a liberal, I understand the desire to respect and appreciate everyone's right to practice religion. As humanists, and as those who champion human rights (and let's be honest here- this is the domain of activist liberals in the West) we cannot overlook those same human rights in the name of multicultural tolerance. Yes, we are all entitled to believe what we want and to act accordingly, but we must insist that all rights are guaranteed to all human beings, even if those rights are in opposition to certain religious dogmas. To liberals, nothing is more important than being fair, open-minded, and inclusive. Warraq must concede that humanist values have been propagated by liberal reformers. But we liberals do have a standard to bear, and not all ideologies will be able to meet it. We must work for their reform, and this is especially true of Islam and its disastrous human rights record. Unfortunately, any criticism of Islam is immediately classified as racist orientalism or western imperialism, even if the criticism is coming from Muslims and ex-Muslims themselves. This interpretation of Islamic critique needs to be viewed as humanist reform and not colonialism.

What is clear in reading "Why I Am Not A Muslim" is that Ibn Warraq perceives his endeavor as a crusade against the falsehood that is Islam. Whether or not one agrees with him he must be given credit for assembling an immensely powerful compilation of evidence to make his case. It is about time that the same standards of historical criticism and humanist reform that were applied to Judaism and Christianity were applied to Islam. There is no good reason for them not to be. Islam has for too long resided in the dark shadow of self-seclusion, cutting itself off from the outside world in order to maintain and validate its own dogmas. Warraq's book is proof enough that Islam as it exists today is unacceptable; there can be no more Talibans or Ayatollahs or Wahhabi Saudis. To believe in the message of an Arabian prophet as that of God is one thing; to promulgate it upon human lives through force, threat, and annihilation is another, unacceptable and entirely at odds with humanity. I eagerly await the arrival of a tolerant, humane, and liberal Islam. But how will the Islamic Reformation take place? That remains a possibility wrought with tremendous hope and yet potential catastrophe. What is certain is that it must begin with each Muslim asking, "Why am I Muslim?" If the question can be answered beyond the call of hereditary inheritance and blind acceptance, then there is hope. But it must begin with individuals, and not councils or mullahs or imams. To quote David Dvorkin once again: "If Western civilization has made one single important contribution to the world, it is the concept of individuality: the idea that a man is what he chooses to be, not what his community ordains him to be; that each of us represents only himself and is not a mere cell in some familial or ethnic organism. This, to my mind, is the true essence of humanism."

Despite what some reviewers have said I found this book to be quite moderate and conservative. The author clearly knows his materials, has thought his thesis through, and doesn't make cheap shots or take short-cuts. His acknowledgement of the high achievements of Islamic civilisation, as in the areas of science and poetry (just to name a couple, he could have added architecture and other outstanding accomplishments but that would just repeat points he has already made) reveal a good appreciation of the strengths of Islamic culture. But oh, someone had to say it; Islamic law, the treatment of women, and inherent extremism (again just a few examples among many) fall woefully short of what other great civilisations attained and ill-equip Muslims for dealing with the modern world with its secularism, rationalism, and egalitarianism. I was just left with a great sadness after completing the book.

In Why I Am Not A Muslim, Ibn Warraq, exposes the bitter truth about Islam without sugarcoating it. He is learned and his book is well documented. He lashes out at the western intellectuals who instead of condemning the assassination order of a savage man like Khomeini against Salman Rushdi, chose to criticize Rushdi for his book The Satanic Verses because it was not "politically correct". Warraq talks about the brutal treatments of all those who fell under the domination of Islam, from the time of Muhammad to the present days. He talks about the minorities, philosophers, women and slaves in Islam. Jews were massacred and exiled by Muhammad in Medina and Kheibar; their belongings were distributed among the "believers", their women and children taken as slaves. This heinous act of barbarism was repeated time and again throughout history with Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and in recent years with Ahmedies, Baha'is and other minorities in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, India, Syria and everywhere Islam reined.

Warraq talks about the origin of Islam, its pagan background and the influence of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism on Muhammad. He talks about the origin of Allah in Arab culture, about the early days of Muhammad as a preacher and his rivalry with another storyteller "Al Nadir" and his revenge against him. Warraq traces back the origin of many Islamic rituals to Arab superstitions and Muhammad's strange belief in jinns, demons and other shadowy beings. He also describes how Muhammad rehashed the biblical nonsense about creation, Noah's Ark, birth of Christ etc. while misunderstanding a lot of it, like confusing Mary the mother of Christ with Miriam sister of Aaron, or the Christian belief in Trinity. You will learn about Muhammad's bizarre view of cosmology, science, history, and medicine. (He prescribed drinking the urine of camel as a remedy against stomachache!).

Then you will learn about Muhammad's metamorphosis from preacher to despot. How his call for tolerance, when he was still in Mecca and weak changed to the cry of killing and looting when he became powerful in Medina. You will learn how Muhammad encouraged his handful of followers to attack the caravans, kill the men, rape the women and bring the booty (20% for himself) to please Allah, while assuring them that if they are killed their rewards will be young boys, rivers of wine, and many hurries in the other world. All what Warraq says is backed by Quran and Ahadith.

The reader becomes familiar with Muhammad's favorite way of eliminating his opponents, namely assassination. Asma Bint Marwan a poetess who wrote against the prophet was assassinated by his order in the middle of the night while nursing her infant. Her five small children where forced to convert to Islam. Muhammad's hit list also included Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi who spoke against him and had to be taken out traitorously. This policy was adopted by Muslims throughout the history and is being practiced up to this day. What we call terrorism, to a Muslim is Jihad (holy war). The much-publicized fetwa against Rushdi is an example. Among other things we learn about Muhammad's preference for young girls (Ayesha was 9 years old when he consummated his "marriage" with her) rather at an advanced age and how he is unabashed to make Allah reveal Quranic verses to justify his lust for women and his sexual appetite.

Warraq makes a thorough study of the totalitarian nature of Islam. He even goes as far as to compare the impact of monotheism on human rights versus polytheism and atheism. For all those who still wonder why Muslims hate so much the west I recommend reading this book. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this subject.

Warraq talks about "Arab Imperialism and Islamic Colonialism". He explains eloquently how through Islam, many civilized nations lost their identity, their dignity and humanity to bow in front of a savage god of a bunch of uncultured Arabs and follow the wimps of a fanatic and schizophrenic bloodthirsty madman of Arabia. Islam is the enemy of science, of freethinking, of reason and of human rights. It acts as a powerful break on the advancement of civilization. Warraq keenly points out that "Islamic Civilization" is a contradiction in terms. You can either be Islamic or civilized. In another place he argues that also "Islamic Philosophy" is a contradiction in terms, because philosophy was regarded as a "foreign science, which led to heresy, doubt, and total unbelief". Brilliant minds like Zacharia Razi and Avicena never believed in Islam and were attacked by Muslims. More recent intellectuals and freethinkers don't fare better. For example Ali Dashti, the brilliant scholar and the author of "23 years"; a book written about Muhammad and his 23 years of prophetic life, was incarcerated while in his 80s during Khomeni's rule and died in prison. In Warraq's own words: "Thus we had the spectacle of periodic persecution of various group considered either doctrinally suspect or politically subversive; individuals (philosophers, poets, theologians, scientists, rationalists, dualists, freethinkers, and mystics) were imprisoned, tortured, crucified, mutilated, and hanged; their writings burned. Significantly, none of the heretical works of Ibn Rawandi, Ibn Warraq, Ibn al-Muqaffa, and al-Razi has survived. Other individuals are forced to flee from one ruler to another more tolerant ruler (e.g. al-Amidi). Some were exiled or banished (Averroes). Many were forced to disguise their true views and opinions by difficult or ambiguous language. Those who managed to get away with blasphemy were those protected by the powerful and influential."

If you reject any criticism of Islam out of hand as blasphemy, then plainly a book of this title is not intended for you.

If you regard the Koran as the unalterable word of God, this book may even enrage you.

But the blasphemy and rage lies only in the heart of the beholder and certainly not in the careful, conscientiously researched pages of this book. This book is that rare read, a work of breathtaking scholarship by an insider which is also a riveting iconoclastic page-turner. Ibn Warraq knows his history and can cite his sources. His scope-from North Africa to Malaysia and prehistory to the present- is nothing short of stunning for an author too modest to call himself a scholar.

It is a mark of his book's worth that those raising the strongest objections so often attack Ibn Warraq the pseudonymous author - and not his actual writings -too much of what he has quoted here comes straight from the Koran and Haddiths. (Muslims believe the former to be the literal dictation by their Prophet Mohammed of divine revelations-and the latter to be the sayings of the prophet collected after his death.)

"A review by a former Muslim, May 13, 2002" offers an excellent summary of this book's contents. A central thesis of this book is that the Koran and Haddiths may be-and indeed should be-looked at critically as historical not divine documents. As shocking as that will be for many believers in the Muslim world, it is a standard historicist technique which has been accepted and applied fruitfully in Christian theology for nearly two centuries.

What may prove equally shocking for non-Muslims unfamiliar with Islam is just how much of the literal texts concern brutalities which may be inflicteded on non-Muslims-with death to be meted out to those who resist, and onerous taxation, physical humiliation and severe religious restrictions to be inflicted on those who submit but do not convert. Though it is certainly true that many Muslims have practiced more tolerant and spiritual interpretations of jihad, the position of non-Muslims in most Muslim lands even today remains distinctly unenviable.

It is certainly not blasphemous to record the actual history of Arab colonization, as Ibn Warraq does, beginning with Mohammed's 27 military campaigns. Far from victims, the Muslims were much more often the victimizers in a ferocious colonization effort which eventually subjugated most of the civilized world, and lasted far longer than the European colonial period. To mention just one example, defeated Albanians, Armenians and Greeks were periodically compelled to hand over one in five of their children to the invaders, children who were in turn raised as Muslim troops to further oppress their peoples. Incredibly, this oppression endured for centuries and "periodically" eventually came to mean annually!

The historian's concern isn't whether Muslims who do bad things are "true Muslims" or practice the "true Islam." His concern is to examine the roots of such historical dynamics in Muslim texts and actual practice, and why they have played out again and again throughout Muslim history not in violence only against Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and even in Muslim-on-Muslim oppression. The Muslim scholar Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), admired by some and reviled by others, deemed no fewer than six major sects "deviant"!

Indeed, the very necessity of a pseudonym hangs over this text like an ominous weathervane of the authoritarian conditions that have ever prevailed over the Islamic world, and which the author has sought to critique. Muslim writers, scientists and reformers have been among the chief victims down through the ages, accounting for much of the lack of development in that part of the world. Taslima Nasrin, Salman Rushdie and Ibn Warraq are only the latest in a long line of Muslims who in following their consciences have had to flee their homes, assume disguises, and live in hiding. A one-time Pakistani zealot, Ibn Warraq can trace the cultural and historical dynamics of such oppression as few others can-from the inside out.

Readers interested in this topic may also wish to download the Arab Human Development Reports (2002 and later years) freely available online from the United Nations.

Before I started actually reading this book, I had little hopes for it. I thought it would be little more than a former Muslim's personal diatribe against his religion, something on the order of a rebellious teenager's rants against his disciplining parents. There are a number of books out there like that, and I have no interest in them.

But as I read it, my oh my, how my impression changed. Far from being a personal rant, this book is as thorough of an examination of Islam as I have found anywhere. It is possible to disagree with the author's sources and materials, perhaps, but you certainly cannot fault his careful, systematic, and thorough research methods. I have read books by famous international experts whose methodology was not as careful or as exhaustive as Warraq's. This work is both a critique and a work of erudite scholarship. Even if you do not like the author's conclusions, you cannot read it without learning a great deal.

Granted, this is not a good book for those who are completely satisfied with their religion and who have no desire to advance their understanding beyond their current beliefs. And, yes, those people will even be offended by this book, just as the Catholic Church was once offended by who questioned it; and who, in the process, removed the shackles from human inquiry and triggered an advancement of human understanding that had never been seen before.

For those who are interested in applying the civilization-advancing tools of the scientific method and modern historical research to this topic, this book is an exceedingly rich and invaluable resource. It will also prove invaluable to Westerners who want to better understand the motives and contextual background of phenomena like the Bin Ladens, the Iranian mullahs who refer to us as the "Great Satan," and the numerous conflicts around the world that seem to inevitably involve members of this religion. The author makes clear that not all Muslims are Bin Ladens. He also makes clear that a Bin Laden could not exist without Islam. The two go hand in hand. This is a point that the author urges non-Muslims to take very seriously.

After reading dozens of books in this area, this is the one that made everything crystal clear. I really cannot rank it highly enough. Warraq is to be congratulated and admired for his bravery and his hard work toward advancing human understanding. Works like this make a valuable contribution to all who value free inquiry.

... My own first reactions, on seeing this book, was delight that it existed, followed by fears for the author's life. That such fears are necessary and realistic only confirms a great deal of Ibn Warraq's criticism of the state of contemporary Islam.

This book outlines the current role of Islam in maintaining various dictatorships that murder and torture their own citizens while threatening their neighbours; in promoting the mutilation and oppression of women and the murder of anyone who dares to question either the basis of the faith or the activities of some adherents. Some reviewers have argued that these things are done by governments, not by the religion, but this would only be valid if church and state were separate in those countries. They are not; the dictatorships in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Ethiopia, Afganistan and elsewhere govern hand in hand with Islamic leaders, or else the Mullahs rule directly. Thus, to credit Islam with the atrocious things done by Islamic Governments is not guilt by association but placing guilt squarely at its source.

Even relatively tolerant and stable countries like Malaysia maintain such peace and freedom as they do in spite of Islam, not because of it. As the clique currently running the Malaysian Government become more desperate many Malaysians expect them to turn to the Mullahs, who will provide violent supporters to beat up and murder the Government's critics in exchange for power to end such tolerance and freedom as Malaysia currently enjoys. Meanwhile Indonesia's new-born democracy is under threat from an alliance between Islamic forces and the military. It might be reasonable to conclude that if you wished to destroy a third world country's economy and infrastructure, shift it from peace and progress to civil war and poverty, end education and technological development, blight its present and future and make it dependent and powerless for generations to come, one of the most effective means might be to put power and money into the hands that country's Islamic clerics.

(Some reviewers have defended Islam by pointing out that the US also sponsors terrorism. They are right: it is hypocritical to condemn only one side's support for murder, but that argument backfires on Islamic apologists as well. The thing is to condemn ALL terrorism.)

But Ibn Warraq mainly looks at Islam's origins and early history, not the present, and this is the most enlightening part of the book to most readers. He shows that Islam's horrific manifestations are not a perversion of Islam, as I had naively thought, but flow logically from its scripture and doctrines. Since Christianity was the form of religious belief that I rejected, I tended to be more aware of Christianity's faults than those of other religions. For example I had believed that in the Crusades the aggression and atrocities were almost all on the Christian side, which Ibn Warraq shows is not entirely true, and that Islam had been a humane and tolerant religion before it came under Christian attack, which idea Ibn Warraq demolishes completely.

I had been, I suppose, afraid that to attack Islam might be racist, or seen as such. But Ibn Warraq argues convincingly that we should avoid double standards, and not be afraid to condemn evil or life-damaging nonsense regardless of the culture it arises from. His very great courage has given me that small piece of courage. I understand that Ibn Warraq has chosen his references to present the worst and most ignorant and murderous side of Islam, rather as if someone presented the doctrines of a US fundamentalist group as typical of Christianity as a whole. That is a valid criticism, but Ibn Warraq shows how the extremes are a logical development from the scriptures. And we need to know the worst as well as the best to know the whole.

I spoke to many Muslims while considering taking up a job in Malaysia (I didn't, the already-repressive Government and the rise of Islamic influence being key reasons), and I know that many are quietly disgusted with things done in Islam's name, and would agree with much of what Ibn Warraq's says. But I do not know of many Muslims who are prepared to come out and openly condemn the slave trades, the murders and atrocities and all the rest. Until those Islamic voices make themselves heard on the side of decency (it will take courage, and many will be imprisoned, tortured or murdered), Islam will continue to be rightly tainted by those things. There the solution is in the hands of moderate Muslims: if there are no voices for decency heard from within Islam, what can the rest of the world reasonably conclude?

Ibn Warraq's title deliberately echoes Russell's _Why I am not a Christian_. Ibn Warraq does not write with Russell's clarity, and the book is in places poorly organised. Nevertheless it contains much information that will be new to most readers. I might have given it four stars, but it wins the extra star for courage; it's a brave book and a necessary one. I wish Ibn Warraq and his family well, wherever they are, and I hope the guys who say "peace be unto you" never find you.

Cheers!

Laon

The author tells us his title is modelled on Bertrand Russell's 1927 essay, "Why I am Not a Christian." Russell's essay was a superficial critique of Christianity which rested heavily on refuting the medieval "proofs" of the existence of God. But no one bases their religious beliefs on such "proofs." The author invokes Russell's name merely to signal that he, like Russell, is a free spirit who will follow the arguments and evidence wherever they lead.

The author tells us his real intellectual heroes are John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper. Mill wrote the 1859 essay "On Liberty," a lively defense of what American's call the "First Amendment rights" of freedom of conscience and expression. Popper wrote his two volume "The Open Society and Its Enemies" during his exile to Australia in W.W. II. Popper's thesis was that both human dignity and the validation of our general beliefs requires that our procedures of conjecture and criticism remain open and dynamic. The greatest failing of Islam, on this author's account, is that it aims to produce a closed society in which conjecture and criticism is impossible. Since Mill and Popper represent the essential thrust of modernity, Islam's greatest problem is how to come to terms with the modern world.

This is where the author's history of islam becomes so important. It is what makes his critique of Islam so much better grounded than Russell's critique of Christianity. It turns out Islam has been struggling to squelch dissent and diversity from its very beginning. Christians could not behave this way during the first four centuries of their existence, because they did not wield significant political power until then. The Prophet and his companions, by way of contrast, were the head of a powerful military and political organization from the time they returned to Mecca from Medina. The thrust of "traditional" Islam from that time forward has been to impose an exceptionless orthodoxy on all believers.

There have always been dissenters within the Muslim community, despite the best efforts to impose confirmity. The author gives a dramatic history of the better known among these Islamic "heretics and freethinkers" (in his Chapter 10). We learn the teacher of one of the most illustrious among these freethinkers (Ibn Al-Rawandi, born about 830) was Abu Al-Warraq (described on p. 257). None of Abu Al-Warraq's writings survive, so he remains a rather shadowy figure. The author's pseudonym (Ibn Warraq) is apparently based on this historical figure, which he takes to symbolize the entire tradition of heroic resistance against the Islamic tradition of mindless conformism.

The initial stumulus for Ibn Warraq to write his book was the condemnation of Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini, in February of 1989, for publishing the book, "The Satanic Verses." The condemnation (in the form of a fatwa authorizing Rushdie's murder) is a clear example of Muslim hypocracy about the origins of their own religion. The story of the "Satanic Verses" (given that label by Muir, the English historian, in the 1850's) is found in the earliest authentic Muslim sources. What happened was that after his revelation of monotheism, the Prophet got in trouble with the merchants of Mecca for condemning their "gods" (and the religious idols of these "gods" which they made for sale.) So the Prophet had another "revelation" which authorized the worship of at least some of these pagan "gods." But he came to regret this concession to the economic needs of his fellow Meccans, and had a third "revelation" that these verses about accepting the pagan "gods" had been inserted by Satan, and were invalid after all.

The entire story is based on the best attested and earliest Muslim sources. But they are difficult for traditionalists to accept because they show how the revelations in the Koran evolved over time, instead of being revealed all at once in their final and perfected form. But instead of trying to deal with this conflict forthrightly, Khomeini tried to suppress any awareness of the problem by having Rushdie killed.

That was bad enough in Warraq's eyes. But then prominent intellectuals from the European continent and the English speaking world undertook to excuse the fatwa and to blame Rushdie for having "insulted" the religion of Islam! Warraq felt this betrayal was an insult to the freethinkers and dissenters who had been martyred throughout the entire bloody history of the Islamic religion. And that was why, he tells us, he wrote his book.

A book addressed to a problem which occurred in 1989 might seem a bit dated in 2006. But the carefully orchestrated riots against the Danes for publishing harmless cartoons of the Prophet shows his concerns are as relevant today as they were in 1989.

There are some puzzling typos and formatting errors in the book, which suggest it was written on a word processor, without the aid or support of editors and proof readers. Perhaps that is one cost of trying to publish a book critical of Islam in today's world. The big publishers won't touch it, and the small ones leave it as a "do it yourself" project for the author. But these typos never interfere with the reader's understanding of what is being said.

on tuesday, september 11, 2001, i watched in horror from an elevated subway platform in brooklyn as the twin towers of the world trade center burmed and collapsed, killing and injuring thousands of my fellow citizens. not to my surprise, i soon learned that this infamous act was perpertrated by a group of devout muslims who had no doubt as to the nobility of their attack against the infidels. i must say that having read ibn warraq's book a few months previously provided me with a firm foundation in understanding the mindset of these religious fanatics. rest assured, it is not these mass murderers who are the aberration in islam, but the secular "lip-service" crowd that lives in mortal terror of these bloodthirsty fiends. just look at algeria, egypt and pakistan if you need clarification.

this book is superbly researched and is very comprehensive in scope. it can be a tedious read at times. however, it you see it through, you will come away with a full understanding of the grave threat that islam poses to our secular and pluralistic western civilization. particularly interesting are the sections dealing with the origins of islam (mohammed may be as apocryphal a figure as jesus), the atrocities committed over the centuries by moslem against pagans, christians and jews, the debased status of women in islamic society (not just under the taliban!), and the open hostility of islam to the infidels. as the book explains, islam divides the world into the "dar al islam" or world of submission, i.e. under moslem rule, and the "dar al jihad", or world of war, i.e., everywhere else, including the usa. the koran teaches that where moslems are a minority, they should preach "brotherhood" and tolerance, but once they are a majority, society is to be ruled according to islamic law, i.e., the sharia. this is what is presently occurring in northern nigeria, where moslems have ignored the nigerian federal constitution and established a theocracy which already has the blood of many christians and animists on its hands.

...

Having lived in the middle east for serveral years I came across this book after moving back to the USA. Of course a book like this would have been, and is, let us say "discouraged" by governments in the middle east. Especially the Gulf area where I lived.

In my tenure in the arabian gulf I met only a few converts away from Islam. Some to agnostisism and a few to christianity. But they both had to hide for fear of family or governmental retribution which was very real. I counted my stars for the grace of being american! What a great thing to have my mind to myself! Ibn Warraq, "son of the page", as I understand this pen name in my broken arabic, offers a refreshing and intelligent review of a belief system such as Islam. I enjoy every page for the depth of knowledge it transfers to my life. I know many muslim men and women and it pains my heart to know that they would not give a moments ear to anything Ibn Warraq has to say due to a closed mind and heart that Islam has fostered. He is correct in saying that the victoms of islam are the muslims themselves.

First let me briefly introduce myself : Dr Jan Knappert formerly Lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS),London (1964 ) , then Professor of Islam at the University of Louvain , Belgium (1971) .I have written many articles for specialist journals , and am the co-author , with Professor Andrew Rippin , of what has become a standard textbook : " Textual Sources for the Study of Islam " , Manchester University Press , 1986 .My other publications include The Encyclopaedia of Middle East Mythology ; Indian Mythology , etc.. I should like to draw your attention to this most excellent book , Why I am Not A Muslim , by Ibn Warraq . At long last a writer has risen to the challenge posed by this religion of compulsion in the Middle of the world , and has put together in one book all the objectionable rules of Islam , and has made it into one of the best books about Islam that I have seen in many years . Let us examine this excellent book . It proposes to " sow a drop of doubt in an ocean of dogmatic certainty by taking an uncompromising and critical look at almost all the fundamental tenets of Islam ".(p.XIV) To this end , the author quotes all the classical European Islamologists , including Arberry , Bell , Blachere , Bousquet , Gibb,Goldziher,Hiskett,Holt, Hughes, Hurgronje, Lane, Lewis,Margoliouth, Muir, Nicholson, Noldeke, Schacht (Snouck is the same as Hurgronje), Watt, Wensinck, Zwemer and of course as many Oriental scholars: Al Ma'arri, Al Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq etc... My problem is that all these names are familiar to me, but this book for the first time sets out clearly the common message of all these scholars: that Islam if it is one day used by a demagogue of Hitler's calibre,it will be a weapon far more dangerous than Nazism, since it claims a universal tenet: world conquest willed by an Arabic speaking God. This book is so rich that it is difficult to review all the subjects Ibn Warraq discusses so capably . Very important is his argument , to me very convincing , that Islamic history as we read it in most history books , is based on a number of fictions .Firstly, the Koran (ch.5) is a book full of contradictions , written in a confused and pompous style . Yet , Muslims must believe that it is the true word of God , and memorize it . It is obvious to the careful reader that the Koran cannot br the word of God . Numerous passages are spoken by Muhammad .More worrying for Muslims is the fact that the Koran is obviously heavily edited at different periods of its history .Chapter Four deals with Muhammad who was probably an epileptic (p.89-90) who also showed clear signs of schizophrenia , as a result of which he had visions of angels and devils . In Medina, Muhammad organizes raids on passing caravans which , he says,are justified by God . Soon he encourages his followers to assassinate political opponents The booty is his . Read on : it is a fascinating story of crimes : Muhammad's life . Read also ch.14 : Women in Islam . It is a history of endless suffering at the hands of Muslim husbands who believe that women are treacherous demons , or at least tricky , amoral , irrational , unstable , and so , inferior . This is one of the best chapters in the book , and should be read by every woman contemplating marrying a Muslim man . Islamic propaganda , funded by the unlimited means of the Gulf states , is responsible for a plethora of untrue ideas about Islam . Firstly , that it is a religion of peace .It is not and never was , witness the endless expansive wars fought by Muslim rulers and raiders . Islam is a religion of dominance . The man has absolute power over his wives and children .the men are in turn are ruled by the imam , the rector of the local mosque .No matter how peaceful a man's character may be , if his imam incites him from the pulpit to kill non-Muslims , he will do it , believing that it is God's will and therefore justified , even praiseworthy . Ibn Warraq's book is so inspiring and so full of brilliant ideas and hard facts as well , that the reviewer never stops wanting to mention further chapters .Ch.10 deals with Heretics and Heterodoxy , Atheism and Free Thought , reason and Revelation . It proves that Islamic culture was never tolerant . Ibn Warraq displays here an incredible knowledge of Islamic philosophical history .It becomes clear while reading him that Islam did not produce or encourage the philosophers but condemned them ; many died in prison . Chapter 17 is likewise of vital importance for all social scientists , and , for all social workers .Muslims mutilating the genitals of girls will claim that they have a right to do so since our countries protect religious freedom ( their own countries do not ). Ther is however , a limit to the freedom any religion can claim , when such freedom results in suffering either of children or of animals , as in the case of slaughter without anaesthesia .Forced marriages of minors is a problem that feminists will have to turn their attention to , also .But it is easier to confront western men who are infinitely more reasonable , than Muslims , who are polite but determined . We must be extremely grateful to Ibn Warraq for his revealing book . Jan Knappert , March , 1997 .