Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Criminal Ramblings with an Overweight Saudi Wife

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how it is only Muslims (not atheists, Christians, Hindus and so on) who openly discuss hacking websites that criticize their beliefs? What is most worrying is the fact that, not once have I witnessed a single Muslim speak out against such behavior, not once has a dissenting Muslim voice said “Y'allah! It's wrong. You shouldn't do that!”

Illegal activity in defence of Islam seems to be widely accepted as the natural thing for them, as good Muslims, to participate in. True, with their preoccupation with emulating the Prophet, you could say it is the “pious” thing for them to do. When Muhammad was faced with criticism, the legality or morality of the means employed to silence the critic never entered the equation.

You can see in this screenshot how the suggestion that WikiIslam should be taken down via hackers does not cause the Saudi Wife to bat an eyelid:

She replies with her silly, but at least legal, “master plan” to take down WikiIslam, by making Wikipedia aware of the site and the use of “wiki” in their name.... Yeah, that'll work. Let's forget about the fact that having “wiki” in the name of a wiki website is a common naming convention used by hundreds of wikis. Maybe this brainstorm was inspired by the fact that MuslimWiki were forced by Wikipedia to change their previous name, which was MuslimWikipedia. And she has the cheek of accusing WikiIslam of being deceptive in its appearance?

Yes, that common complaint, not made by miserable housewives everywhere, makes another appearance when the Saudi Wife tells us:

“I have recently found out there is a website called WikiIslam... When you first look at it, you think the site is legit... then you continue to actually look into it, and you see it is nothing but a blattant[sic] disregard for ....”

As I have already noted in my response to MuslimWiki's lies against WikiIslam, the truth is WikiIslam makes it abundantly clear in their 'About' page, FAQ page and Google description that they are a website critical of Islam. If Saudi housewives are too stupid to notice this, the confusion can hardly be blamed on WikiIslam. The only “similarity” between Wikipedia and WikiIslam is that they both run on wiki software. Muslims seem to assume every wiki is owned by Wikipedia or has to follow Wikipedia policies, so any website which has the backbone to not let Muslims intimidate them into censorship must be deceptive.

Underneath a screenshot of a WikiIslam page which shows Muhammad was an antisemite, she writes:

“PS: I Googled 'who are semites'... to get a page to share with a friend that really things[sic] Arabs who are SEMITES are Anti-Semites... I think its kinda funny!”

This is also a common argument used by many Muslims, and is part of a wider tactic employed in defence of Islam. Namely; word games. They love to play on words. For example, claiming “Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits to God", and since Jesus submitted to God, he wasn't a Jew (oh no, certainly not), he was a Muslim.

The idiocy behind such logic doesn't deserve being explained due to its oh so obvious nature. But, in an attempt to get through to Muslims, I will.

"Doctor" is the Latin word for "teacher", so according to the Latin language all teachers are Doctors. In reality, this is meaningless. The literal meanings of words vary from language to language. This does not make all Doctors "teachers" and viceversa. Muslim in Arabic may mean someone who submits to God, but in English it is someone who adheres to the Islamic faith. Obviously, every Arabic speaker, when they're not busy trying to proselytize non-Arabic speakers, is aware of this, otherwise, why not allow Christians, Jews, Sikhs, and other monotheists to visit the Ka'aba in Mecca? After all, they are “Muslims”, aren't they? Also, Qur'an literally means "the recitation", but it would be ludicrous for an English speaking person to say “I am going to Qur'an some poetry”.  

The WikiIslam site explains:

"Technically, Arabs, Ethiopians, and Assyrians can be described as Semitic people, however in the context of "Anti-Semitism" it is commonly understood to refer to people who identify as Jewish."

The references provided confirm this:

“Noun • (n) anti-Semitism, antisemitism (the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people)” – Definition/ Anti-Semitism, Princeton University's WordNet

"Function: noun hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group" – Definition/ Anti-Semitism, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

So, basically, what the Saudi Wife is claiming is akin to the grandmaster of the KKK saying, “I'm not a racist. I can't be, because I'm a part of the human race too!!!”

It's pretty depressing, but this is the state of Islamic thinking, and it takes us nicely back to the original topic of discussion; Muslims silencing critics through “Cyber Jihad”.

As critics such as Ali Sina have pointed out, this is due to their intellectual bankruptcy. The only recourse they have available is to emulate their prophet through intimidation, humiliation and killing. Up until the age of the Internet, it was very nearly impossible to criticize Islam without literally losing your head over it. Now that we have the Internet, it really is the last semi-safe place to criticize Islam and how it effects the behavior and attitudes of its followers. This fact tends to infuriate Muslims, who will often "challenge" the critics to show their faces, unaware that their words only confirm the barbaric stereotype earned by their faith. 

I say “semi-safe” because there still are dangers to voicing criticism of Islam on the Internet, even with the relative anonymity it provides. Muslim reactions to criticism go further than simply trying to hack a site to shut it down. Many issue death threats and attempt to track down the people behind these sites in the real world. The reason behind this is not to shake their hands and have a nice discussion over a hot cup of cocoa. No, the reason is to teach them a lesson, even to kill them. For example, Hossam Armanious and his innocent family (originally from an article by the New York Sun):

“A radical Islamic Web site systematically tracks Christians on, an Internet chat service on which a New Jersey man received a death threat two months before he and his family were murdered. The password protected Arabic Web site, at the address, features pictures and information about Christians who have been particularly active in debating Muslims on PalTalk. […] Hossam Armanious, a Coptic Christian from Jersey City, N.J., who was found murdered earlier this month, frequently debated with Muslims on PalTalk. Two months before Armanious's murder, authorities said he received a death threat from a Muslim PalTalk user: "You'd better stop this bull ... or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you." On January 14, Armanious and his family -- including two daughters, ages 15 and 8 -- were found killed in their Jersey City home, bound and gagged with their throats slashed.”

Even if hackers were to somehow remove the site, their actions would be self-defeating. WikiIslam makes regular data backups in multiple locations, so it would swiftly be put back online, and the buzz generated by the other websites and blogs that criticize Islam would probably double its traffic.

Finally, I have no idea how the Saudi Wife looks. But judging by the fact that Muslim dress discourages exercise, resulting in all the countries with the highest obesity rates among women being Muslim countries, and that over 70 per cent of the Saudi population and 70 per cent of women in the Gulf states are alarmingly obese, statistically, there is a big chance that the title of this post is correct.