IslamoCritic's Response to REASON INFUSION's Lie-Filled "Challenge"

[Note: This response was originally appended as an update to this page on May 19, 2012. I have decided to split it today because some of my readers may have come across  REASON INFUSION's challenge but are not aware of my response to it. After viewing his second lie-filled challenge video (yes, the guy is so desperate to save face, he has to force false words into my mouth and twist words that I have said), I'm satisfied that REASON INFUSION has certainly viewed this response whilst it was at its original location]

First I will quote my correspondence with Blackmore. I sent this to him yesterday (May 18, 2012). He then posted it on his FFI thread:

"Hi Blackmore. Just giving you an update on REASON INFUSION.

The guy has no shame. He's creating loads of videos aimed at us, and is now "challenging" me. He says he's gonna refute my posts.

So if we recap;

1. He deletes the debate between you and him on Youtube when he notices he's been clearly defeated.

2. I host your debate on my blog and he makes loads of video calling me out by name.

3. I refute his silly videos in detail and expose him as an approver of slavery. When he notices this he deletes his videos whilst I'm still in the middle of replying to them.

4. I make it clear that it is now obviously over and I'm no longer going to bother with someone who refuses to link to his opponents arguments and deletes debates when he loses.

5. He creates several new videos on why he refuses to debate us (apparently because the elitist prick thinks we're not worthy because we're not "intellectuals")

6. He then does a U-turn and "challenges" me, accuses me of being a racist, liar, and a whole lot of other thing which he is actually guilty, and claims he will refute my posts.

7. His channel is now purged of videos which contain my name in their title and he refuses to even name who he is challenging in his new video.

This guy is very sneaky.

1. He expects me to waste more of my time by replying to him when twice before he has deleted debates which he has lost.

2. He also expects me to give him free traffic by discussing him and linking to his posts when his viewers don't even know the name of the critic he is responding to (he just calls me the "Bangladeshi").

Everything he's posted so far can be refuted, but I refuse to participate in a pointless debate that will eventually be deleted and give him more traffic in the process whilst giving me none.

I think neither of us should respond to any of his videos and give him what he wants. I'm simply going to add a note at the end of the existing article pointing out all these facts. I certainly think you should not make any further posts about this loser."

REASON INFUSION read that message on FFI, as today  (May 19, 2012) he has a new video addressing me by name. I have taken the liberty of downloading it to my hard drive so can upload it when necessary (watch the original video here whilst you still can).

I know I said that this was the end of the "debate", but I will respond to every single word in this new video simply to demonstrate how pointless it is for me to further engage a disingenuous liar like REASON INFUSION in discussion. Blackmore has been kind enough to respond to the previous video aimed at me here, and some of his other videos here.

As I noted in my message yesterday, I will not be creating a new post dedicated to REASON INFUSION but will be keeping my response confined to this existing one. This is probably more than the bigoted and elitist pro-slaver deserves.

[0:00-0:27]

In his most recent videos, REASON INFUSION has become visibly more irritated and prone to childish behavior, and this video is no different. He begins by calling me an "Islamophobe", a controversial and disputed neologism ironically created/popularized by a bunch of homophobic Islamists from the Muslim-Brotherhood in order to "beat up their critics."

The stupidity of this neologism is easily exposed by the fact that devout and moderate Muslims espouse or agree with the very views that "Islamophobes" accuse Islam of being guilty of, but I think Sam Harris puts it best when he explains:

"Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.” My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry” and “racism” by many “moderate” Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.

There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe."

REASON INFUSION then goes on to accuse me of -wait for it- "riding his coattails". Here's the definition:

"Riding coattails is a metaphor that refers to the way in which lower level or uninspiring celebrities can often reach stardom through their ties to another, more popular and successful celebrity. This can often be used as a generic phrase for anyone that hangs onto another person as they forge ahead, without effort from the hanger-on."

Forgive me but this is one of those "LOL" moments. Is REASON INFUSION really that deluded? His illusions of grandeur are bordering on narcissistic. Blackmore and several other friends of mine on the FFI forum are well aware that I have been writing for years. My work has been quoted and featured all over the Internet (I'm sure he'll move on to accusing me of plagiarism, but quoting yourself does not make you guilty of this). My latest blog, on the other-hand, is a recent development, and even that has been featured on sites such as TROP. Conversely, his videos are lucky if they even receive 10 views. If anyone is riding another's "coattail", it is not I.

[0:27-1:14]

Here he proudly displays his bigoted and elitist attitude by condescendingly referring to me as "sir" (he also may not be aware that it can be construed as a racial slur, a stereotype of South Asians referring to whites as "sir", akin to the stereotype of African-Americans referring to whites as "boss"). He then proceeds to make up excuses for removing his videos. He says it's because he "condensed" the same material into other videos. As far as I'm aware, this is a lie.

I replied to the last half of his second video from memory and distinctly remember him bragging about how 55 per cent of converts in the UK were whites. I remember it because he seemed rather excited and overly emotional about it. Nowhere in his new videos does he mention this.

What is worst about this situation is REASON INFUSION's stubbornness and lack of integrity. He refuses to admit that he was clearly wrong in deleting a set of videos which he knew very well I was in the middle of replying to. There is no "if's" or "but's" about it. This is simply bad debating etiquette and should not be difficult for someone to admit to.

[1:14-2:02]

He continues to try and justify his lack of integrity through several means:

1. He mocks me for not "showing my face" and "hiding behind a blog". Blackmore dealt with this yesterday (yup, REASON INFUSION says the same thing in his previous video). His response touches on similar points raised by Sam Harris (quoted above) in regards to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"REASONINFUSION talks about a particular man from Bangladesh who hides behind a typewriter and doesn’t show his face. It’s IslamoCritic he is talking about. Well REASONINFUSION, not every Muslim knows that Islam is a religion of peace. There many among them that murder for their religion. A Islam critic’s life is not save. Basically all Islam critics have protection. Geert Wilders here in Holland has 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, protection. And his only ‘crime’ is repeating what the so called Muslim fundamentalists or extremists are saying about Islam. And somehow these guys are save and don’t need protection. It’s a crazy world isn’t it?"

Let's not beat around the bush. Safety is a very real concern for critics of Islam, especially those who had formally belonged to it. I've been threatened several times. For example, once I was told I was a "homosexual Christian dog(?)" who needed to be put down. Of course not all correspondence has been like that. I was once contacted by a sweet Bangladeshi girl who told me she was "ashamed" that a fellow Bangladeshi could leave Islam. Granted, it's not exactly perfect, but at least it was not threatening.

REASON INFUSION's mockery only exposes how twisted and evil some "moderate" Muslims really are. They hide safely behind their Islamist co-religionists whilst we have no such luxury. And REASON INFUSION is proud of this? In fact I discussed this very issue in a previous post of mine totally unrelated with the current discussion (March 21, 2012):

"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)"

2. He also attempts to mock me for apparently taking "months" to post responses because I'm busy "gathering" biased sources from the net. Both of his claims are false.

A. The claim that I take "months" to reply is a provable and hypocritical lie. What, does he really think I'm waiting with bated breath behind my computer screen in anticipation of his replies to me? I reply to his silly videos as soon as I view them, which means there can be a delay because I may be unaware that he has even created a video aimed at me. With his last batch of videos (three in one go), the slight delay was from the fact that I'm busy. You can't just dump three videos on someone and expect them to write three separate replies in one day.

The original debate between Blackmore and the overtly racist REASON INFUSION was posted at my blog on April 11, 2012. I replied to his first video aimed at me on April 20, 2012, the very day I was made aware of it. Since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 3 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I then replied to the first of 3 new videos aimed at me on May 2, 2012,  also the very day I was made aware of it (to be honest, I was not expecting him to be shameless enough to come back for more). Again, since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 2 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I replied to the second over 3 posts dated May 4, May 6, and May 10, 2012. Additionally, although this post is only an "update", it is as lengthy and thorough as any of my previous replies. This video I am replying to was only uploaded by REASON INFUSION today, and I am replying to it -you guessed it- on the very same day.

The time between posting REASON INFUSION's deleted debate with Blackmore and REASON INFUSION's mass deletions is less than a month in total, and most of my replies were posted the very day I viewed the corresponding video. So where has this fantasy of me taking "months" to reply to one of his videos come from? Moreover, since when has anyone set a time limit between responses? I can assure you, unlike REASON INFUSION, if I agree to a set of terms, I will do my damned best to stick by them.

Where is the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier? Well, this lay in the fact that I responded to the first of his second set of videos on May 2, 2012, yet he only responded to it today on May 19, 2012. That's 2 weeks and 3 days for an actual direct response to anything I have written. And yes, that's longer than any length of time between his videos and my responses to them. There is a reason why I give them the title, "Hypocrite Extraordinaire", and this perfectly demonstrates it.

B.  The claim that I was busy "gathering" biased sources from the net is incorrect. When it comes to most of the statistics I provided, I collected them long before I ever set eyes on one of REASON INFUSION's repetitive and obscure videos. If there is anything that may delay responses from me is the fact that I'm very particular about my grammar and spelling. My English is hardly MENSA quality, but why bother writing if you don't give it your best?

As to the overall quality of the countless links I provide for all my statements, they each have to be assessed separately (certainly out of the scope of this reply). But what I can say is,

Firstly, a lot of the links I provide are sourced directly from the Compendium of Muslim Texts and other source material that I own. If he has a problem with these, then it is orthodox mainstream Islam he really has a problem with, not me.

Secondly, there is not only one available reference for each statement I make. If I were to continue this discussion, I'm sure I could find suitable alternatives to anything REASON INFUSION objects to.

His complaint only further exposes his hypocrisy. In the video before this one, he attempts to prove Islam planned on eliminating slavery. In order to do this he quotes from a book called "Humanism in Islam" written by a Western dhimmi named Marcel André Boisard. He provides no quotes from Islamic sources, just the words of an intellectual dhimmi.

In two of my previous replies, I explain, using canonical Islamic sources, Muhammad's participation and the theology behind slavery, and the reason why Muhammad never intended to put an end to this abhorrent trade. Sure, some of the later commentators, holding evolved and superior morals to that of Muhammad's, may have claimed this, but there is no canonical texts that even come close to supporting such an assertion.

So when have the writings of a non-Muslim Western dhimmi become more authoritative than the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and all the other Islamic texts?

Seriously, you're addressing an adult Bangladeshi ex-Muslim, not some white teenaged college student rebelling against his parents because a nun once smacked his ass at Sunday school. What next, are you going to start quoting Karen Armstrong? Please don't. I would feel embarrassed for you.

[2:02-3:22]

Talk about creating strawmen. REASON INFUSION now claims I took "offense" at his comparison of the "Jim Crow laws to the Apartheid in South Africa".

No, I certainly did not take "offense" to the comparison. If you take a look at the particular response he is referring to, you can clearly see I was simply referring to the irony in a Muslim who continually condemns all of these inhumane forms of Western oppression in a debate not related to the West, yet hypocritically fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent, Dhimmitude, in a debate specifically about Islam.

Yup, this is the individual who claims we're the "hypocrites" who are “slick in our condemnation”, yet he is the only one who refuses to out-right condemn slavery and those who partook in this trade. And whilst we're at it, let's clear up this lie REASON INFUSION insistently repeats over and over again about how we do not want to offend our Christian American fundie "allies". I think I probably lost their support in my first reply to him where I say to f**k (slaving) Americans, Christians and their slaving and raping founding fathers.

In this section, he then goes on to once again repeat statistics on human trafficking, etc. in the Netherlands. All of this has been dealt with in one of my previous responses that can be read here.

[3:22-4:45]

Here he shows how the Jim Crow laws are often compared by scholars to the Apartheid practiced in South Africa. Again, this is a strawman. I have never denied such a comparison. In my opinion, it is a very good comparison and both are worthy of condemnation. I was only commenting on the irony in a Muslim who condemns all of these forms of Western oppression, yet fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent.

He then goes on to point out how Adolf Hitler praised the United states. Again, I have never denied that he did. The fact that Hitler would praise America is only further proof that America has a history that it should be rightfully ashamed of. But it is funny how REASON INFUSION uses this as proof of how evil America was, but then fails to apply the same sort of reasoning to Islam. In Hitler's own words:

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" - Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

[4:45-5:20] 

In this section the elitist snob again tells us how educated he is and then says he "assumes" I think he would not be aware of what a tu quoque is. This is ridiculous. He previously attempted to accuse me of it, and I called him out for the lying hypocrite that he is. So why on earth would he assume I thought he was unaware of what it meant? It's all too obvious that he knows what it is, but he is simply too incompetent to use this logical fallacy effectively. For example here:

"REASONINFUSION asks, why didn't I tell my readers the "Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world"? 

This is a ridiculous question that hardly deserves a response, but for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings, I will answer. I was clearly not writing an in-depth essay, or even a vague summary, of the history of slavery. I was simply introducing a debate between REASONINFUSION and Blackmore discussing slavery in Islam, whilst also pointing out the use of fabricated nonsense by REASONINFUSION. My introduction was a measly 6 sentences in length. How and why would anyone expect me to cover such a thing in such a short space? There is an appropriate time and place for everything, but discussing the Dutch in an introduction to a debate on slavery in Islam is not it.

A more salient question would be, why didn't REASONINFUSION tell his readers about the Dutch slave trade? Even after Blackmore told him he was a Dutch, REASONINFUSION continued in his use of tu quoque against America. So basically what this boils down to is the fact that REASONINFUSION is mad at me for his own incompetence. The guy can't even use logical fallacies effectively."

[5:20-7:02]

What he has the audacity to claim in this section probably explains why he was in a hurry to delete all the videos I responded to. He again claims it is me, not him, using the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

This accusation is crazy. As I've stated many times, the subject of this debate was and always will be SLAVERY IN ISLAM. The definition of this fallacy is when "one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser." So when REASON INFUSION brings up unrelated statistics on Bangladeshi child abuse in a debate about SLAVERY IN ISLAM, who is committing the logical fallacy?

Seriously, is this an adult I'm responding to? Why does he fail to comprehend the obvious fact that it is he and only he who is guilty of this fallacy that he continually accuses others of?

As proof, you only need to read the original debate between Blackmore and REASON INFUSION (which proves the subject of debate was slavery in Islam), and then portions of my responses to his insistent use of it.

For example; the previous quote above, and then here:

"REASON INFUSION finishes off his video by attempting to lecture me on the tu quoque logical fallacy. He states,

 "'They did it too' is not a defense. To justify the European slave trade on the basis that the Arab slave trade come before. It's poor logic and it is irrational ....."

This is hilarious when we consider the fact that the subject in question has always been slavery in Islam, therefore it is REASON INFUSION who is employing the use of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy by constantly changing the subject and bringing the founding fathers of America, European slavery, the Jim Crow laws, Christianity, the Dutch, Bangladeshis, bride-burning, child labor, child abuse, and even our own fathers, mothers and sisters into the equation, all simply to justify and defend Islam, its racist slaving white founder, and the resulting Islamic slave trade."

And here:

"As I predicted but did not seriously expect in my previous response, now that REASON INFUSION is aware that I am not white, and now that he is unable to use his stock tu quoque arguments against me, he has moved onto my South Asian/Bangladeshi ethnicity/nationality. He proceeds to roll out statistics on child abuse etc. in my overwhelming Muslim country of Bangladesh,"

 And here:

"REASON INFUSION then moves onto using the tu quoque ("you too") logical fallacy against my nationality/ethnicity (a fallacy which he, in the first video, hilariously attempted to lecture me on, when it was him and only him who has ever employed it in this discussion). He once again quotes statistics on child abuse and other forms of oppression in Bangladesh in an attempt to stifle discussion on Islam by trying to undermine the credibility of its critics and shift the focus away from Islam. Rather than repeat myself, I will simply quote my previous reply to this patent nonsense"

And here:

"REASON INFUSION loves to open his fallacious arguments with "they conveniently overlook the fact...", and this argument is no exception. So why hasn't he condemned any of this? And before he again accuses us of employing the tu quoque fallacy, I would like to point out that it is him and only him who is using it. Blackmore and I are simply responding to his tu quoque and exposing their stupidity."

[7:02-8:57]

REASON INFUSION opens this section with a comment, spoken with venom, that leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that his racism and bigotry extends further than simply to whites, when he states:

"I think what you should also look up is 'credibility' sir. I don't know if you have it in Bangladesh, but in the United States we have something called 'credibility'"

Then he goes on to accuse me of using tu quoque whenever he brings up Bangladeshi child abuse statistics (something which I address in this post and partially in this post). As I have already made clear, it is he who is using tu quoque whenever he attempts to shift focus away from slavery in Islam. Blackmore and I are simply exposes the stupidly in his choice of subjects that always backfire on him because most of the problems he highlights are caused or justified by followers of Islam and Islamic teachings.

He then says I spend only one sentence to actually discuss the child abuse taking place in Bangladesh. Well, considering the fact that I was responding to a lousy tu quoque that has nothing to do with slavery in Islam, I would say this was generous of me. As I said before, there is a time and place for everything, but discussing child abuse in a discussion on slavery in Islam is not it.

REASON INFUSION says he will be back, and I'm sure he will. As for me, I'm done with debating a racist imbecile.

Last Blog Update from Blackmore: His Response to REASON INFUSION

As I noted in my last response, the videos that I was in the middle of responding to have been deleted and replaced with another video titled "REASON INFUSION HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK".

My participation in this discussion on Islam and slavery is over. After this response from Blackmore to his new video, there will be no more further updates concerning REASON INFUSION posted on my blog.

From the FFI Forum (visit this thread for all future updates):

Just received this video from REASONINFUSION.

He said that he is satisfied that Muhammad was born into a society that already had slavery. Well by this he confirms what I already said and that is that Islam is nothing more than the habits norms and values of a primitive 7th century Arab desert tribe. They had slavery, and so does Islam. They held pilgrimage to Mecca, muslims also do. They walked seven times around the Kaaba, muslims also do. They preformed circumcision, muslims still do. They beat women, muslims still do. They had sex with children, muslims also do. The list is endless. Muhammad let the people as much as he could keep their old (polytheistic) habits. To join Islam they hardly had to give up or change anything of what they were accustomed to. This was to make the transfer from their old polytheistic believes to Islam as smooth as possible. No one had to free their slaves! So you may ask what new did Muhammad bring? What came with Islam in existence that wasn’t already there? What was so revolutionary about Islam?

REASONINFUSION you are completely brainwashed. You forgive Muhammad of keeping slaves because he was born into a society that already had slavery. And because of Muhammad today’s muslims still do and muslims always will do. But, where is Allah in this story? Wasn’t Muhammad only the transmitter of Allah's laws and rules? You make it look like Muhammad was the decisionmaker in Islam instead of Allah.

And again, 300 years of western slavery is the object of your irritation. Even if that’s hundreds years gone. Don’t you see REASONINFUSION that you do not have any argument to defend Islam with? This is shooting with blanks. Because with words anything can be said you are just saying something. Doesn’t the Islam, the Quran or hadith, provide you with anything better than accusing others of something that muslims still do but the others don’t?

And than REASONINFUSION gives a little summary of Islamic texts made by slave owners to make them look good. The laws of a country should be based on the Quran and the hadith is what muslims are saying. I wonder what would happen to a slave if this becomes the law of a country: Bukhari volume 7, #132 "Narrated Zam'a, "The prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."" So REASONINFUSION you want laws based on this example of Muhammad. All Muhammad’s words and deeds are perfect right?

To make Islam look good REASONINFUSION, and basically all muslims, do magnify the slightest acts of Muhammad which can be considered good, like letting go a slave, to enormous proportions. While at the same time huge achievements of others, like a total ban and total prohibition of slavery, are belittled as trash.

At 5.25 REASONINFUSION starts saying, complaining, that according to the bible black people’s destiny is slavery. Well there are quit a few Islamic scholar who agree with the bible:

[Blacks are] people who are by their very nature slaves. Quoted in “Blasphemy Before God: The Darkness of Racism In Muslim Culture” by Adam Misbah aI-Haqq

Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah, 14th century

Blacks] are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country."Ibn Qutaybah (828-889)

"[inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries] are people distant from the standards of humanity" "Their nature is that of wild animals..."Hudud al-`alam, 982 AD

"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah

So REASONINFUSION is following a religion that doesn’t even see blacks as human. How low go you go? How indoctrinated can you be?

At the end REASONINFUSION tells that he is Muslim because he believes in one god. That’s an absurd reason! Why should the world have been created by one god? What’s the logics behind this? Why can’t there be four of five gods who have done the job? Why is one god the most logical?

And he says Islam is a monotheistic religion. Well it’s full of polytheistic rituals like offering animals, walking around a cube, pilgrimage, Ramadan, praying in a certain direction, praying at certain times, the honoring dead objects like a stone, kissing that stone, give mystical value to astronomical appearances like sun-eclipses and shooting stars, and so on. This is pure polytheism. These are the same habits and rituals the pre-Islamic Arabs also used to do and perform! REASONINFUSION, how do you explain this?

REASONINFUSION never explains why he prefers a culture that always had slavery and always will have, above a culture that invents slavery and later on abandons it. And would he, if he had lived over a 1000 years, that would be in the year 3012, still defend Islam with a the 300 years of western caused slavery? Would it still be a good argument? And if it isn’t why is it now?

REASONINFUSION’s defense of Islamic slavery is that Muhammad grew up in a culture that already kept slaves. I'd already bring the question up about almighty merciful and justful Allah. It seems that there is nothing in his message that goes against the whishes norms and values of the 7th century Arabs. Basically all Allah did was confirming that the Arabs did a great job so far. So that brings up the question of why Allah felt the need for sending the Arabs a message by messenger. If they were already doing alright what’s the purpose for his message? Wouldn’t it be way better to contact a messenger in a un-Islamic culture? I’m sure that in those days close to the pre-history there must have been cultures that didn’t beat women, didn’t have sex with children, didn’t keep slaves, didn’t have forces marriages, didn’t commit stoning, didn’t do circumcisions, and so on. To people who are not acquainted with these habits it would be useful to send a message. It beats me why Allah chose for a different route. And it beats REASONINFUSION to, he's not gonna answer this question.

For my response to REASON INFUSION's "challenge" that was originally appended as an update here, go to this page. For Blackmore's responses, go here.

Hypocrite Extraordinaire Part 4: REASON INFUSION, Crime, Bride-Burning, Polygamy & Female Converts

This is the forth (and apparently last) part of my response to REASON INFUSION's set of three videos titled, “REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK”.

This is the final reply to his second video which could previously be viewed here. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. REASON INFUSION has deleted all three of those videos which were addressed to both I and Blackmore and replaced them with one single generic video titled "REASON INFUSION HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK".

 Gone with the wind: Screen capture of REASON INFUSION's videos

Luckily, I can still recall the major issues he discussed in the final part of his second video and so am able to reply to the rest of it today from memory. My response to the first video can be viewed here, my first response to the second video can be viewed here,  my second response to the second video can be viewed here, and all previous responses from both I and Blackmore can be read here.

I apologize for the delay in these responses, but, to be frank, replying to REASON INFUSION's rants are not very high (and rightly so, considering his mass deletions) on my list of priorities. However, I am of the firm belief that if you are going to do something you should do it properly. Hence the length of these posts.

I finished off my previous response by addressing REASON INFUSION's ironic comparison of the Dutch and the apartheid laws to the US Jim Crow laws and Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews, and so will continue on from there. For those who watched his video before he deleted it, this response deals with everything from 3 minutes 6 seconds and beyond.

Crime Statistics in the West and those Responsible

After these comparisons, he then brings up figures dealing with human trafficking of women who are then forced to sell their bodies in the Netherlands. Again this is hypocritical of REASON INFUSION. Arguments like these are often used by Muslims, and for them to do such a thing is extremely twisted and sadistic.

What these apologists are basically doing is defending an ideology by using a tu quoque argument that negatively smears an entire nation or ethnicity who may face a certain problem. Smears which in turn can and will be used to fuel racism.

Not only is this a highly bigoted/racist thing to do (where you are born and what your ethnicity is do not affect your behavior. On the other hand, what you believe in certainly does), but it is also rather twisted and hypocritical when the reality of the situation is that much of those problems are caused by the very ideology that the apologists are attempting to defend.

This was the case with REASON INFUSION when he addressed me with his tu quoque argument against Bangladesh and the sexual/physical abuse of children there, and it is also the case here. Blackmore addressed the attack on  the Netherlands here, but I would like to expound on that today.

Human Trafficking and Sex Crimes 

Human trafficking is hardly unique to the Netherlands or the West. In fact, Muslim countries seem to excel at this abhorrent trade.

Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim country with a population of 246 million. This Muslim country tops the UN bodies list for child trafficking cases, yet measures to protect children against sexual exploitation there "remain weak".

REASON INFUSION loves to open his fallacious arguments with "they conveniently overlook the fact...", and this argument is no exception. So why hasn't he condemned any of this? And before he again accuses us of employing the tu quoque fallacy, I would like to point out that it is him and only him who is using it. Blackmore and I are simply responding to his tu quoque and exposing their stupidity.

Not only Indonesia, but Yemen, where child trafficking actually increases during Ramadan, and where the government takes no steps to address this sexual exploitation of thousands of innocent children.

In Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, such trafficked children between the ages of five and twelve years old are sold in their thousands to fat wealthy Muslim men as sex slaves. Sannah Johnson, the Middle-East regional director for the Swedish Save the Children charity says,

"I am not surprised by the information about the existence of such traffic to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, particularly in light of that marriage with children is widespread and accepted"

Yes, that's right. There is nothing surprising of this sexual exploitation of children in the Islamic Middle-East because "marriage with children is widespread and accepted". What was that REASON INFUSION quoted about Bangladeshis (who are overwhelmingly Muslim) being "alarmingly tolerant" of child sexual abuse?

Also in "moderate Turkey", the country most often held up as the example of a modern and civilized Muslim majority nation, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported in 2006 that there were “very high” levels of human trafficking.

As Blackmore has already pointed out, a lot of the sexual abuse of women in the West, especially in Europe, but certainly not limited to there (for example the largest human trafficking case in US history was by a gang of Somali Muslim immigrants), are carried out by Muslims.

In the United Kingdom, there has been widespread grooming of young white, Hindu and Sikh girls by Pakistani Muslim men. Their religion is obviously an important factor because these so-called "Asians" are also targeting children from other non-Muslim Asian communities. In fact a whopping 25 percent of men accused of grooming children for sex are Asian Muslim offenders. Quite shocking when you consider that they only form a tiny percentage of the general UK population.

Oslo is the capital of Norway, and every single rape assault between 2005-2010, where the rapist could be identified, was committed by a non-Western foreigner. In 2010, its non-Western immigrant population was almost exclusively made up of immigrants from Muslim countries.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The same pattern is being repeated all over Europe and the entire world. And, as with cases in the UK and their use of the word "Asian",  the media is hiding the religion of the perpetrators using various means.

For example, the Swedish media referring to a gang of rapists, who assaulted two Swedish girls and raped one, as “Two Swedes, a Finn and a Somali”, when in fact they were four Somali Muslims. Norway refers to them as "non-Western foreigners" whilst statistics show most of those "non-Western foreigner " are from Muslim countries and one of the many victims even tells us the rapist himself admitted during the rape that he was doing this because "his religion" allows him to.

So far I have only covered Western countries where Muslims remain the minority, so you can imagine the dire situation women and children find themselves facing in countries with a Muslim majority. Indeed, this is happening everywhere and further proves that these attacks have nothing to do with ethnicity, but religion.

For example in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where 74 percent of Pakistani women from the minority Christian and Hindu communities are sexually harassed and non-Muslim children who are victims of rape perpetrated by Muslim men are even refused medical help from Muslim doctors. A place where serial rapists specifically target non-Muslim children and the Muslim police (who are often the ones actually committing the rapes in the first place) refuse to take action (similar cases here, here, here, here, here and here).

Christian murder victim, Zubaida Bibi. Failed rape attempt led to the Muslim slitting her throat

There is no corresponding rape-wave committed by non-Muslim men in Pakistan or any other country, where the perpetrators are specifically targeting Muslim women and children.

Other Religiously Motivated Crimes and the Prison Population

Religiously motivated/justified crimes are not only limited to the sexual ones describe above, or to religiously sanctioned pedophilia (i.e. Islamic marriages) and child physical abuse. There are a whole host of other crimes which you would never initially guess could be motivated by the religion of the perpetrator.

For example, drug trafficking. In May 2011, anti-terrorist police in Italy dismantled a vast network of drug trafficking committed by illegal immigrant Islamists who admitted to wanting to "drown the Christians in drugs".

And then there is bank robberies. From Money Jihad's post, "More bank robbery by the mujahideen":

"First, some examples to set the table:

• North Carolina jihadist Daniel Patrick Boyd said it was okay to rob from infidels.

• Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam who has studied Islam his whole life, agrees entirely, and urged all Muslims living in the West either steal money from their hosts by welfare scam shakedowns, outright theft, or both.

• Islamist rabblerouser George Galloway endorsed this position as legitimate under Islam.

• The fundraising circle of the mastermind behind the Bali bombing also believed that they were fulfilling the requirements of Islam by robbing banks to fund jihad.

• We’ve also seen the bombing of banks in Turkey, the seizure of banks in Iraq, and bank heists perpetrated by armed Hamas security personnel.

And now for the latest from India’s Hindustan Times (h/t [T]ROP), where the Indian Mujahideen and the Student Islamic Movement of India are following the commandments of Allah, Muhammad, and their hearts by robbing from, in their eyes, valid kaffir targets"

If Muslims are truly committing a disproportionate amount of the crimes, you would expect them to be overrepresented in the various prison systems, and this is exactly the case all over the world.

In Blackmore's native Netherlands, a place like my native Bangladesh which REASON INFUSION attacks for its crime statistics, 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim, compared with 5.5 percent of the general populace.

In Belgium, Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace.

In France, Muslims make up about 60 to 70 percent of the prison population, compared with 12 percent of the general populace. 

In many states in India, Muslims are significantly overrepresented in prisons. For example, in Maharashtra, Muslims make up 10.6 percent of the population but are 32.4 percent of those convicted or facing trial.

In Italy, of the 27,000 foreign detainees, one third of them are Muslim.

In Spain, 54,000 Muslim inmates make up 70 percent of the prison population. Spain with its 40-million population, is 94 percent Catholic and has a Muslim community of only 600,000.

In the United Kingdom, Muslims make up about 11 percent of the prison population, compared with 3 percent of the general populace.

In the United States, it is estimated that Muslims make up between 17-20 percent of the prison population, compared with only 0.8  percent of the general populace.

Bride-Burning among Muslims and Polygamy

Before moving onto polygamy and the conversion of women to Islam, I would like to briefly cover something else I partially overlooked in my previous response, bride-burning.

Bride-Burning in India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

After his attack on the Netherlands, he then returns to addressing me and moves onto problems in India among Hindus. As I responded here (under the section "Tu Quoque or not Tu Quoque?") I am not even Hindu or Indian, I am Bangladeshi and of Muslim heritage, so other than being some sort of bigoted attack on my ethnicity, this tu quoque makes little sense.

REASON INFUSION himself admits bride-burning has no support from Hindu scriptures so it does leave the question; why bother even bringing it up in a discussion on religion? If slavery had no backing from Muslim scriptures, I certainly would not be discussing Islam in a discussion on religious slavery.

REASON INFUSION speaks of bride-burning but describes the practice of sati. What I failed to mention in my previous post was that this practice is almost completely eradicated in India. As Blackmore noted in his response:

"That wife burning of Hindu woman is baloney. That’s from a long time ago. Why do you constantly defend Islam with bad things of others of the past? India was ruled hundreds of years by Muslims who didn’t stop the widowburning. It was also ruled for 87 years by the English and they stopped it! And it’s only in the Islamic part of china where woman still have lotus feet. And circumcision these days is almost 100% a Muslim thing."

The bride-burning that happens now, is related to dowries and other issues, and is practiced by both Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims. REASON INFUSION is a Muslim and he has failed to condemn this practice. Therefore this argument has royally backfired on him.

Polygamy in India and the Difference between Religious and Cultural Backwardness

First I'd like to quote highlights of "Monogamy Reduces Major Social Problems of Polygamist Cultures", from the University of British Columbia, ScienceDaily, January 24, 2012:

"In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.[...]

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.[...]

Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBC's Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality."

The reason for that quote is due to REASON INFUSION also bringing up polygamy and how it used to be legal in India for Hindu men. Bringing up the topic of polygamy only exposes what a wholly incompetent apologist REASON INFUSION really is, and highlights the one major difference between Islam and all other religions and cultures.

Man-made laws have evidently evolved with our morality, whilst Shari'ah (consisting of the Qur'an and Sunnah) are seen as Allah's unalterable holy law. To attempt to change it would be considered blasphemous, as it constitutes Bid'ah, something which was forbidden by Muhammad himself. What can be altered is Islamic jurisprudence, but as that is extracted from, and cannot contradict, Shari'ah, the results tend to remain unacceptable to the modern world.

This fact is nowhere more evident than in India and with its polygamy laws. REASON INFUSION mentions that polygamy, an extremely negative and harmful practice (see above ScienceDaily article) was outlawed in 1955 in India, but what he fails to mention is that this ban was not a universal ban covering all Indian citizens. Polygamy is illegal in India for Hindus and all other religious groups under the Hindu marriage Act, yet remains legal for Muslim men under Shari'ah.

We are not discussing two different sets of cultures here, only one; The Indian culture. Yet within this single culture, one massive group (i.e. Muslims) fails to adapt to change because their religion forbids major reforms and specifically justifies and institutionalizes these backward practices through the example of its founder (the "Uswa Hasana" or "excellent model of conduct").

This is why polygamy is still legally practiced by Muslim Indians but not by any other Indians. This is why slavery is still practiced by Muslims and why REASON INFUSION cannot outright condemn slavers. This  is why almost half of all the worlds Muslims are inbred. And this is why some, but certainly not all, "Anti-Islamists" criticize Islam above all other religions.

Hypocritical Muslim apologists like REASON INFUSION use similar arguments in order to defend the disgusting practice of pedophilic Islamic marriages. "Americans and Europeans both considered child marriages to be acceptable!" they tell critics. And, yes, this is true. But note the past tense. They "considered" , not "consider". Marriage to young girls was previously seen as normal, yet most people in the West today, both religious and secular, find child marriages to be repulsive. Could this be because they have no uswa hasana who married and fudged a child?

As the recent study on polygamy, the most comprehensive of its kind, quoted in the ScienceDaily finds; polygamy is partially responsible for younger brides, larger age gaps between partners, gender inequality, and increased fertility rates. And every single one of those symptoms of polygamy are evident in Muslim populations all over the world.

Child brides and larger age gaps between partners has already been covered in an earlier response, but in addition to that I will now cover the other two symptoms; gender inequality and increased fertility rates.

Concerning gender inequality, this is apparent even in the laws concerning polygamy (women are not allowed four husbands), but  gender inequality in Islam goes a lot further than that. For example; some women's rights activists in Iran have criticized the laws governing women. They say women face difficulties in "getting a divorce and criticize inheritance laws they say are unjust and the fact their court testimony is worth half that of a man's", and they also "cannot run for president or become judges." But all of this is supported by Islam.

The sexist inheritance laws are taken straight from the Qur'an (a male inherits twice that of a female [Qur'an 4:11]). And so are the laws governing female testimonies (a women's testimony in court is worth half that of a man's [Qur'an 2:282]). Muhammad himself explains the necessity for such gender disparity within Islamic law, calling women deficient in intelligence [Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301], and also condemned women in high social positions (i.e. presidents, judges etc), by declaring "Never will succeed such a nation that makes a woman their ruler." [Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219].

Unfortunately, we can all too clearly see the natural results of such unnatural and inhumane beliefs in the real world:

"The 2009 report by the World Economic Forum has listed predominantly Islamic nations in the bottom of their annual Global Gender Gap (GGG) Index.....The only nation not predominantly Islamic in the bottom of the Global Gender Gap index was Benin.

In addition, the 2009 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index report does not include rankings on a number of significant and predominantly Islamic nations where women are oppressed. [...]

Even with these significant exclusions from the Global Gender Gap index report, the bottom 10 index nations (excluding Benin), which are all predominantly Islamic nations, represent a population of over half a billion individuals.....If women represent half of the population in these nations, then these bottom 10 predominantly Islamic nations demonstrate the ongoing oppression of an estimated 250 million women.

In addition, if some other predominantly Islamic nations in the bottom of the Global Gender Gap index are also added to these totals, the global image of the correlated oppression of women further expands dramatically. (Again, this is without such nations as Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., which were not included in the GGG index report analysis.)

If nine additional such nations in the GGG index are added, the total population impacted doubles from half a billion to over 1 billion.....If women represent half of the population in these nations, then these bottom ranked, predominantly Islamic nations demonstrate the ongoing oppression of an estimated 500 million women.

All of the predominantly Islamic nations referenced in these calculations are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC rejects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and has created its own version of a human rights document, “the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights” that stipulates that “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a” and that “The Islamic Shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Concerning increased fertility rates, this is something Muhammad specifically endorsed, funnily enough, to make his religion the "fastest growing religion". Note that the misogynistic bastard also discouraged Muslims from marrying women who do not "give birth to children":

"Narrated Ma'qil ibn Yasar: A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you." [Abu Dawud 11:2045]

This too is reflected in the real world through some alarming statistics. Muslims in almost every nation are out-breeding the "competition".

In Egypt, Muslim women have a total fertility rate that has been consistently 15% higher than the total fertility rate for Christian women.

In India, Muslim women have a total fertility rate of 4.4, which is 1.1 children higher than the total fertility rate for Hindu women [K.M. Mathew, ed.: Manorama Yearbook 1996, p.458-459].

In Israel, Muslim women have a total fertility rate that is double that of Jewish women.

In Lebanon, a nation that has both a large Christian and Muslim population, the total fertility rate of Christian women is considerably less than that of Muslim women, and is in fact well below the replacement level.

In the United Kingdom, over a quarter (27 percent) of Muslim families had 3 or more dependent children, compared with 14 percent of Sikh, 8 per cent of Hindu, and 7 per cent of Christian families.

Conversions, Particularly of Women, in the West

Due to being pressed for time, I will keep this final section brief, but can always expand on it at a later date via a new post if the need arises.

I forget the exact figures REASON INFUSION quoted, but it was allegedly an estimate of several thousand converts in the UK over an unspecified period of time. Apparently two-thirds of the converts were women and 55 percent of all converts were white (that last part seemed to impress him a lot).

1. The estimated figures quoted by REASON INFUSION are not very impressive when you take into consideration the fact that there are an estimated 200,000 apostates in the UK who have left Islam only to be faced with abuse, violence and even murder. 
2. Numerous studies over several decades have consistently found that women are naturally "more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men"  
3. The ironically named REASON INFUSION is yet again committing a logical fallacy, namely, "Argumentum ad populum". Even if every woman in the UK converted to Islam, it still wouldn't "prove" Islam is not oppressive to women.
4. Similar to the situation of non-Muslim females in Pakistan (where there are annually over 700 forced conversions) and Egypt, Muslims often force women/girls into conversions in the UK. It was reported in 2007 that British police were clamping down on "aggressive conversions" to Islam, during which vulnerable teenage girls are beaten up by Muslim men (I have personally seen similar behavior and I can tell REASON INFUSION that it is not something to be proud of). 
5. Anti-Islamists generally do not claim Islam is a "black man's religion". That's usually the line of Muslim missionaries trying to convert/brainwash people like REASON INFUSION. Frankly, saying such a thing is an insult to black men. Whites converting to Islam simply proves that stupidity transcends racial lines.

Hypocrite Extraordinaire Part 3: REASON INFUSION, Dutch Apartheid, Nazi Germany & their Inspiration

This is the third part of my response to REASON INFUSION's set of three videos titled, “REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK”. This is in reply to a part of his second video which can be viewed here.

I did plan on covering video number two in a single post but was forced into splitting it due to the unexpected and excessive length. I am not even going to attempt to estimate how many posts my responses will eventually cover. Since these are the last set of videos which I intend to reply to, my answers are more detailed than I originally intended.

My response to the first video can be viewed here, my first response to the second video can be viewed here, and all previous responses from both I and Blackmore can be read here.

I finished off my previous response by addressing REASON INFUSION's ironic attempts at maligning my  nationality/ethnicity, and so will continue on from there. For those who are watching his video, this response deals with everything between 2 minutes 6 seconds and 3 minutes 6 seconds.

After addressing me, he then turns his tu quoque arguments to Blackmore and his nationality/ethnicity as a Dutch. Like his previous attacks on me, he doesn't really add anything new here. He just rehashes his old arguments. He says Blackmore is "proud" of being Dutch and claims he is overlooking the fact that the Dutch were the "first to bring slavery to America", that they " perfected the apartheid system",  and compares its inhumanity to the US Jim Crow laws and Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews, etc.

First, let's make it clear to every body, Blackmore has never said he is "proud" of being Dutch. REASON INFUSION is simply busy building one logical fallacy on top of another. On top of his poor tu quoque arguments that are meant to divert the focus away from the actual topic at hand (slavery in Islam), he is  also constructing a strawman so he can attack and knock down something that was never claimed.

Blackmore has already addressed this claim himself, when he replied to REASON INFUSION and told him quite clearly that he has never said he was proud of being Dutch, but neither is he ashamed of the fact. He has repeatedly condemned the slavery carried out by both his ancestors and every other person of European heritage.

But, as I have previously answered, so what if Blackmore was proud of being Dutch, or if the Dutch were the first to bring African slavery to America? This has no relevance whatsoever in a discussion on slavery in Islam. The Muslim Arabs and then the Muslim Africans who had converted were enslaving black Africans long before the Europeans ever set foot on its soil. Black African Muslims to this day are busy slaughtering other black African non-Muslims, gays, and apostates. So, why is REASONINFUSION so proud of being Muslim and black?

In fact, if there is anything that makes the discussions of Europeans relevant in a discussion on slavery in Islam, it is the fact that these European slavers were actually inspired by the Muslims. Rodney Stark who is an agnostic American sociologist of religion, conservatively notes that by the tenth or even ninth century, slavery had effectively ended in Europe [The Victory of Reason, p. 28]. So is it any surprise that this disgusting trade received a new lease of life, beginning with the Spanish colonization of the Americas? The fact that Spain had already faced its own "colonization" in the form of the Islamic Conquests and had been under Muslim rule for hundreds of years prior to this, and the fact that other European rulers such as Queen Elizabeth I were at first disgusted by the idea of slavery, is just too much of a coincidence.

Not only slavery, but many other infamous things such as the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades bare an uncanny resemblance to all things Islamic. Regarding the Crusades, renowned historian Bernard Lewis notes that even the Western imitation of Holy War fell short of the Islamic original which was put into motion by Muhammad himself:

"Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. [F]orgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas … clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad, and are precursors of the Western Christian Crusade. 

But unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory.… The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule.… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

REASON INFUSION compares the Dutch and the apartheid system to the US and its Jim Crow laws, and Nazi Germany and its treatment of Jews, yet fails to mention and condemn the Islamic equivalent, Dhimmitude, something which predates, postdates, and bares a striking resemblance to all of the aforementioned legal systems (see this video for a quick rundown on what is involved). In fact, in several instances, these Western forms of oppression were directly inspired by the Muslim treatment of dhimmis, which is the legal status that the Shari'ah mandates for non-Muslims living in Islamic lands.

The archetype document for this religious legal system is the Pact of Umar, an agreement between a subdued Christian population and the Muslim invaders lead by Umar, one of the closest Companions of Muhammad and the second Rightly-guided Caliph of Islam. Some secular scholars, and more recently, certain apologists, have doubted the authenticity of this document (as they also have with the hadith literature and the Qur'an itself), but what they do not doubt is that what is described within this document was actually practiced by the early Muslims. For example, the use of distinguishing marks is consistent with documentary and archaeological evidence from seventh and eighth century Iraq and Syria.

Regardless of what secular scholars say, this document is universally accepted as genuine by mainstream Muslims who hold it up with pride, a view echoed by some of its greatest scholars, including al-Khallal (d. 923 AD), Ibn Hazm (d. 1063 AD), al-Tartushi (d. 1126 AD), Ibn Qudama (d. 1123 AD), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1138 AD), Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 1176 AD), Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350 AD), Ibn Kathir, al-Hindi and ‘Ali ‘Ajin. The eighth-century Hanafi jurist, Abu Yusuf, further noted that the terms in the Pact dealing with dhimmis are clearly in agreement with the Qur'an and hadith literature. Therefore, the Pact "stands till the day of resurrection."

Some of the terms in this pact are truly horrifying and are still widely practiced today in several Muslim countries. For example in Egypt, where Copts are barred from building new churches and are forced to leave old ones in disrepair. Any attempts to the contrary result in jail sentences or the massacre of Copts for breaking the conditions stipulated in the pact, all the while, the Egyptian Muslim police fail to intervene.

One of the conditions which are particularly salient to this discussion include number fifteen, which states "[We non-Muslims will] move from the places we sit in if they [Muslims] choose to sit in them." Now, I don't know about REASON INFUSION, that great condemner of whites, but this brings to mind; a bus, the Jim Crow laws and a certain American civil rights activist named Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks alongside one of my all time heroes, Dr. Martin Luther King jr.

Rosa Parks was an African-American civil rights activist, i.e. "the mother of the freedom movement" who refused to give up her seat in a bus to make room for a white passenger. She is nothing short of a hero, but REASON INFUSION will have to disagree because those racist laws are no different that the Islamic ones. Of course, REASON INFUSION will not disagree because he is a slavery supporting hypocrite who is "slick in his condemnation" and "inconsistent with his moral ethics", something which he ironically, and falsely, accuses me of being.

It is also rather ironic and sad that he would bring Nazi Germany and their treatment of Jews into the discussion, for, among various other issues, some of their practices were directly inspired by Muslims.

Condition number twenty-three states "[We non-Muslims will] wear belts around our waist". The belt being referred to is the zunnār, a wide yellow belt made of cloth. There is little surprise that the yellow star used by the Nazis as a badge of shame against the Jews was actually first introduced by a Muslim caliph in Baghdad in the ninth century as a variant of the zunnār belt. This, as with slavery, holy wars and inquisitions, spread to the West during medieval times. As recently as 2001, the Hindu minority in Afghanistan were forced to wear yellow badges in public to identify themselves as such. This was part of the Taliban's plan to segregate "un-Islamic" and "idolatrous" communities from Islamic ones.

Hitler admired Islam [Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115], the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al Husseini was an ally of his, and actual religious Muslim Nazis are a little-known historical fact. The Handzar Muslim Division was an SS branch of soldiers who were practicing Bosnian Muslims, and who were responsible for many war crimes, especially against Serbs. After WWII many German Nazis fled the West to safer and more welcoming pastures in the Muslim world. Some even converted to Islam. Even today, many Neo-Nazis embrace Islam and retain their affections for Nazism and, naturally, their hatred of Jews.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Al Husseini with Adolf Hitler.

Likewise, many Muslims love Hitler. Mein Kampf ("My Struggle", or in Arabic a possible translation would be, "My Jihad") is a best-seller in the Muslim World including; Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, and is also selling well in London areas with a large "Arab" population and is often sold along-side religious literature. In my native Bangladesh, Mein Kampf is selling as well as Dan Brown's novel, "The Lost Symbol". And before REASON INFUSION makes himself look like a fool again by attacking Bangladeshis, I can tell you right now that those books are not being purchased by Buddhist, Christian, or Hindu Bangladeshis, because sales of the book soar towards Eid, as it is bought by Muslims as gifts.

A Muslim mother in Melbourne Australia with her daughter (2009)

But why this mutual love and respect? It is obvious, there is simply no other religious texts on earth as antisemitic as Islamic ones. Among other things, the Qur'an tells us Allah has cursed the Jews with enmity and hatred until that Day of Judgment [Qur'an 5:64], and the Sahih hadith tell us that this day will not come unless the Muslims fight and slaughter the Jews [Sahih Muslim 41:6985]. So by default a Muslim has to believe in the "final solution", i.e. the total annihilation of Jews. In fact, the amount of antisemitic text in Mein Kampf is eclipsed by what is found within Islamic scriptures:

In another one of his videos aimed at critics of Islam, REASON INFUSION tells us, "What they don't realize is that America is to blacks what Nazi Germany is to Jews". His hypocrisy cannot be more evident than it is here. Whenever we actually "dare" to discuss the actual topic of discussion, i.e. slavery in Islam, he counters with a tu quoque argument beginning with "they conveniently overlook the fact" etc.

Well, in this case, REASON INFUSION "conveniently overlooks the fact" that Islam was and still is to non-Muslim minorities, especially apostates like myself, what "America was to blacks" and what "Nazi Germany is to Jews". There is plenty of texts which tell us Muhammad ordered his followers to kill any Muslim who "discards his religion" [Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260]. The killing of apostates, both for "normal" apostasy and "treason", has been an accepted part of Islam since its inception and remains to be so. This is something that is agreed upon by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, meaning you simply cannot be an orthodox Muslim without agreeing. Even the Shi'ite sect, whom together with the Sunnis constitute almost the entirety of the world's Muslim population, agree with this.

This is reflected in opinion polls where, for example, a Pew poll released on December 2, 2010, found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to “allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion”. To give you an idea of the kind of figures we're dealing with, let's use Pakistan as an example; the poll found that 76% of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000 (96% of whom are Muslim) that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13% of Muslims opposed killing apostates. We're not even safe in the UK where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agrees that apostates should be put to death.

As a result of such views, there are laws against apostasy in many Muslim countries, and apostates all over the world are persecuted and killed. This violence is not primarily from Islamic governments, but from family members and individuals from the Islamic communities themselves, who operate very often with impunity from the authorities. This persecution has been documented in many countries, including, but not limited to; Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Comoros Islands, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom , United States, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

As these people, innocent men, women, and children continue to be beaten, raped, abused and slaughtered on a daily basis simply for what they do not believe in, I and every other person of conscience wait with baited breath for self-serving hypocrites like REASON INFUSION to finally take a stand for what is right and voice their holier than thou condemnation at their own brethren.

Okay, I apologize to readers for not covering what I originally said I would, i.e. crime statistics in the West and the conversion, especially of women, to Islam in the West. Hopefully I will cover both in my next post.