This is a response to "Dealing with Doubt: finding certainty when faith is attacked", an article by
Qãhırıï, a black Muslim convert who, according to his Facebook postings,
apparently
believes he has "refuted WikiIslam".
Bias under the guise of academic objectivity?
In its “About” page, WikiIslam claims to be a “website where anyone can post anything about Islam”, “a community-edited website where Muslims and non-Muslims are able to share their knowledge of Islam in separate articles”. It also claims to be “the one-stop source of high-quality factual and objective information about Islam” and promises to allow Muslims to have their own articles in response to an article on the site.”
WikiIslam, as its name suggests, is a wiki website. If Qãhırıï thought the description was inaccurate, he could have easily changed it. Previously, before the above description was added, the "About" page stated that,
"WikiIslam is a community edited web site where opinions critical of Islam are not censored for achieving a 'neutral point of view' (NPOV)." This description seems fine, so why didn't Qãhırıï revert the page back to this? Being the pious and irrational Muslim that he is, he creates an account at WikiIslam, and rather than correct the mistake, he shamelessly proceeds to vandalize the page in an attempt at self-promotion.
To give Qãhırıï some credit, the description was pretty inaccurate, which is why it was changed a long time ago. Currently it states,
"WikiIslam is a community edited website which focuses on the critique of Islam, whilst also allowing pro-Islamic responses in separate articles... WikiIslam's goal is to become the one-stop source of information critical of Islam. This information is based primarily on its own sources, the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars." This is a very accurate description of the site.
There are, to be fair, articles by Muslims, but these are nowhere to be found when reading the articles that they address. In other words, Muslim submissions, specifically pro-Islamic ones, are kept separate, hidden, in fact, from the non-Muslim submissions.
This is not true. If pro-Islamic submissions are not linked to an article critical of Islam, it means that they were never written in response to any existing articles. You can hardly fault WikiIslam for not linking to
non-existent articles. Conversely, if you look at the pro-Islamic content with "Response" in their titles, they are indeed linked from the pages they are responding to (e.g.
here,
here, &
here)
Misinterpreting evidence by quoting it out of context?
Unfortunately, an intentional bias does in fact exist. On its page about Islam’s (supposed) racism, there is a heading “Racism against Infidel Arab Tribes.” Under this heading is a translation of a verse of the Qur-an.
“The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.”
This is a sound translation of the meaning of the Qur-an, chapter 9, verse 97 to be exact.
According to the above verse, the Qur-an is indeed racist (or desertist, perhaps) against the Bedouin Arabs.
Read two verses further, though, and the Qur-an paints a more balanced picture of them:
“But some of the desert Arabs believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah and obtaining the prayers of the Messenger. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will Allah admit them to His Mercy: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur-an 9.99)
Considering the length to which the website goes in other places to review and present Islamic evidence, it is naïve to assume that this was a mistake. This omission, which reverses both the context and meaning of the verse, is either unforgivably negligent, or intentionally misleading. In fact, this is a textbook trick used to slander Islam.
Qãhırıï's argument in defense of the Qur'an's prejudices is extremely weak. Let me demonstrate by rewording the Qur'an to fit a more familiar setting for my readers:
“The Negroes of the ghettos are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which God hath sent down to the Grand Wizard: But God is All-knowing, All-Wise.”
(KKK Sermon 9:97)
Does any of the above prejudices be negated by the following passage?
“But some of the ghetto Negroes believe in God and the Grand Wizard, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Him and obtaining the approval of the Grand Wizard. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will God admit them to His Mercy: for He is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (KKK Sermon 9:99)
The fact that the Grand Wizard (i.e. Muhammad) speaks approvingly of the few blacks (i.e. desert Arabs) who submit to his abhorrent ideology does not change the overt racism/prejudice displayed earlier (a prejudice that Qãhırıï openly admits is present in Surah 9:97).
WikiIslam’s claim to a neutral, open or unbiased presentation of Islam has been disproved.
Its true intention of slandering Islam at any cost, even that of its own integrity, has been proven.
WikiIslam does not claim it is neutral or unbiased. In fact, they make it abundantly clear in their 'About' page, FAQ page and Google description that they are a website critical of Islam. And bias or neutrality does
not alter facts. WikiIslam references all of its statements to pro-Islamic, scholarly or reliable neutral sources, therefore their bias is irreverent.
Personally, I find it offensive when reading of blacks who have converted to Islam. It is as puzzling to me as a Jew embracing Nazism or a black person embracing the KKK. You only have to look to the situation in
Sudan,
Mauritania or
Libya to see how Islam breeds
racism and
slavery. A lot of weak justifications have been provided by Muslims, but they never stand up to closer scrutiny.
I often hear that, in the US, Muslim dawagandists often tell Afro-Americans that Muhammad was a black man in order to convert them. However, the hadith literature go to great lengths in telling us
he was actually a white man.
Dawagandists also claim that Muhammad provided a system that would eventually lead to the abolition of slavery, but this is not true and nowhere does Islamic scripture support such a statement. This is not a claim made by me, but by Muslim scholars themselves. For example; Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, who
in 2003 proclaimed,
"Slavery is a part of Islam...(those who argue that slavery is abolished are) ignorant, not scholars. They are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.". Yes, Muhammad regulated it and allowed for the manumission of a slave, but this is by no means an obligation. In Islam the freeing of a slave is like an "
indulgence". Therefore, it is a
punishment for being naughty, i.e. something that should be avoided.
Muhammad's actions perpetuated the existence of slavery by institutionalizing it within Islam. Muhammad was a
slave-trader. He not only
owned many male and female slaves, but also
captured,
sold, and, in the case of Mariyah the Copt, had sex with his slaves. At times, he actually
discouraged the freeing of slaves. He encouraged racism by exchanging
two black slaves for one Arab, and even Bilal, the famed "black Muslim", was bought in
exchange for a black non-Muslim slave.
Muslim apologists are so self-conscious of the racism that inherently exists in Islam, that they have had to lower themselves into
creating a fabricated Farewell Sermon that states,
"an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white". The
authentic Farewell Sermon contains no such statement and advocates wife-beating, comparing them to domestic animals.
Faulty methodology and logic?
According to WikiIslam, Muhammad was impotent.
“As per my research, Muhammad, during the last years of his life was suffering from acromegaly. One side-effect of this degenerative disease is impotence. He had erectile dysfunction.”
On the same page, he is accused of having a “scandalous love affair”. He also apparently deprived his wives of sex that he was not able to have:
“So the prophet decides to punish all of them and not sleep with any one of his wives for one month. Depriving one’s wives sexually is the second grade of punishment recomendedn in Quran.”
In another places WikiIslam alleges that he was a pedophile, rapist and sex addict.
So, according to WikiIslam, a man is impotent, that is, unable to have sex. While he is unable to have sex, he has a love affair. He punishes his wives that he is unable to have sex with by depriving them of sex he is apparently not having with them. Then, while unable to get an erection, he rapes women. He also has an apparent addiction for this thing that he can not do.
Wrong.
WikiIslam does not claim Muhammad was impotent. Apparently Qãhırıï did not notice how
the article in question is written in the first-person, meaning it's an essay. Essays, as it now clearly states, “do not necessarily reflect the views of WikiIslam.” Naturally, essays only reflect the views of the author.
Are they serious?
Yes they are. According to Islam's own sources, Muhammad was a
pedophile and
rapist addicted to
sex.
How could they arrive at these differing conclusions from the same sources of evidence?
These laughable blunders could only have happened under one of three scenarios:
A. The WikiIslam team is confused.
At best, they are confused. Everyone gets confused sometimes, and while we can forgive them for this, we can not take their word about the thing they are confused about.
B. WikiIslamists are methodologically unsound.
If they are not confused, then they have devised a methodology which leads them to contradicting conclusions. If that is the case, i.e. that their use of reason is faulty and/or inconsistent, then we can not consider any single conclusion found by this methodology to be reliable.
C. The WikiIslamists are blinded by their own hatred.
At worst, they bear so much malice towards Islam that they will disparage it in any way they can think of, without apparently thinking. If this is so, not only are they blinded by hatred, in a way that makes their judgment questionable, but they are deceitful about their claim to objectivity, putting them doubly in doubt. Further and lastly, as they are not objective and in fact maliciously biased, their word can not be trusted.
The correct conclusions are both B and C. WikiIslam is methodologically unsound. A simple but crude way of saying that is: they don’t know how to think.
None of Qãhırıï's conclusions are correct because they are all based on a
false premise assuming WikiIslam claims Muhammad was impotent.
As a result of this, it appears Qãhırıï is the one who doesn't know how to think and it is him who is fond of making laughable blunders.
In making an accusation against Muhammad regarding an incident in his household, WikiLeaks narrates a long narration, whose chief narrator was a companion of the prophet named Abdullah bin ‘Abbas.
It's WikiIslam, not WikiLeaks.
WikiIslam defends one narration specifically because Bukhari narrated it, with no other reason given. Then, in the same argument, they reject a narration, collected by the same person, with no reason given.
Wrong. That article is an essay, so WikiIslam does not defend or reject any of the narrations on that page. If someone has questions regarding the claims on that page they should obviously direct them towards its author, not WikiIslam.
So is his name good or not? WikiIslam has no way, or a very flawed one, of classifying a narration as sound or unsound. They accept Bukhari’s narration on one occasion and reject it from another arbitrarily. They, for example, do not make a comment on Bukhari’s particular science of narrations. This is because they have no science.
Wrong again.
Imam Bukhari (Muhammad Ibn Ismail Ibn Ibrahim Ibn al-Mughirah Ibn Bardizbah al-Bukhari) was an Islamic scholar and collector of ahadith. His name is undoubtedly "good". His work is second in importance only to the Qur'an itself. In fact WikiIslam uses his "science" of hadith to correct a widespread but erroneous belief among Muslims, the belief that
Muhammad performed miracles.
Imam Bukhari admitted that some unauthentic narrations may have slipped by, but, when dealing with sahih hadith narrations, the burden of proof is always on the person who claims a certain narration is not authentic to provide the evidence for why they consider it to be not authentic.
Imam Bukhari came up with three criteria which he used to determine whether or not a narration was sahih or not. His third criteria is mat'n, i.e. the content of a narration must not be in contradiction with the Qur'an. The only exception to this rule is the narrations regarded by scholars to be Qudsi (narrations which contain non-Qur'anic words from Allah).
Some hadith record that Muhammad denied being able to perform miracles, and an analysis of the Qur'an clearly shows that he had repeatedly done so when confronted by critics. Therefore, according to imam Bukhari's criteria, the narrations which claim miracles on Muhammad's behalf must be discarded.
They are (mis)guided only by the drive to prove what they are not investigating but have already decided to be true, and they disavow by any or no reason anything that contests their pre-conceived conclusions. These simplistic and ignoble guidelines can never lead to a correct conclusion.
Again, since I have pointed out his many errors, it would seem all of the above drivel would be more accurate if applied to Qãhırıï himself rather than WikiIslam.
Open hostility & what this all means
WikiIslam readers would do better to read only from credible, reliable and knowledgeable sources about Islam or any other subject they would like to learn about.
As I elaborate in a
previous article, what is being done here in order to defend Islam is "beheading the messenger" [i.e.
attacking the messenger ], a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy.
WikiIslam uses only credible, reliable and knowledgeable sources about Islam for its critique, and it is in fact Muslims and their apologists who often turn to polemic and biased sources to support their claims. Don't take my word for it. Why not put Qãhırıï's advice to the test for yourself?
I did just that when I come across a forum discussion which included the discussion of
Aisha's age at consummation. Some WikiIslam articles were cited by a user, and the response was to label WikiIslam a hate site and link to an apologetic article claiming
Aisha may have been up to 19-years-old at the time of her consummation. All of the arguments presented in the article, and more, were first popularized by an apologist named Moiz Amjad. Unfortunately for the apologists, they have
all been refuted by WikiIslam. Additionally,
Shaykh Haddad, one of the most respected Islamic scholars alive today and someone who I respect immensely,
replied to his polemics many years ago. His reply was never addressed by Moiz Amjad.
It is clear, in this instance, that it is WikiIslam who provide their readers with information based on credible, reliable and knowledgeable sources about Islam, not the sites that are presented by Muslims like Qãhırıï. It is the same with the issue concerning
72 virgins. Whilst Muslims will often provide you with articles that claim it's
all a Jewish conspiracy, WikiIslam provides you with references from scholarly pro-Islamic sources (
here,
here &
here).
In fact, because of their provable deceit and obvious biases, they are confirming what they are so vehement in guiding people away from. They are false, which shows what they oppose to be true. They falsify, which only clarifies the truth they are trying to hide.
Fallacious nonsense.
Ignoring the fact that Qãhırıï has proven nothing, if A accuses B of C, and B claims D, C being incorrect does not make D correct.
For example; if I (A) accuse Qãhırıï (B) of being a member of the KKK (C), and Qãhırıï (B) claims "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his Messenger" (D), the fact that I am incorrect in claiming Qãhırıï belongs to the KKK (C) does not prove that Allah exists or that he sent a pedophile as his last Messenger (D).
We should throw the testimony of this biased witness and dishonest accuser out of the court of reason. WikiIslam, for its part, should close, and its contributors and editors should inspect their morality, integrity, and ability to reason.
Sorry to disappoint, but I highly doubt WikiIslam is disappearing anytime soon, and it is Qãhırıï who seems more deserving of being thrown out of the "court of reason". As for the editors "inspecting their morality, integrity, and ability to reason", it is Qãhırıï who needs to do this, but self-reflection and criticism is something which is alien to most of the Muslim world, so I won't be holding my breath.
In the middle of the aforementioned long accusation, the author’s argument breaks into the exclamation:
“What can a prophet ask more?… Alhamdulillah! AllahuAkbar! Subhanallah. Isn’t Allah great?”
This is far removed from any intellectual or academic language. (It isn’t even good English, but that’s not the point.)
As has already been mentioned, essays do not reflect the views of WikiIslam. Additionally, Qãhırıï should be ashamed of himself. In another section he points out a spelling mistake (Bukhari mis-spelled as Bukahri). The author whom he is ridiculing for his deficiency in the English language is not a native English speaker. Considering the fact that he is an Iranian, his grasp of the English language is impressive and should be commended. Not all of us have the luxury of growing up in the "land of the free".
The wider application of this is that WikiIslam is not
alone. Muslim-bashing, Islamophobia, call it whatever you like, there
is a growing and concerted effort to disparage Islam and Muslims, and
unfortunately it’s working. Almost no Muslims are terrorists, and
almost no terrorists are Muslims,
What's good for the goose is good for
the gander. If Muslims can play games, then so can we. Qãhırıï
links to a ridiculous article by an Islamist-supporting website
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked CAIR. This website has
been accused of
spreading
distorted information, using hate sites as sources, misinterpreting sources, linking to a site that supports the slaughter of Muslims, and
much more.
Qãhırıï, like many Muslims, accuses
sites critical of Islam of many thing, then sees no problem in
endorsing pro-Islamic sites which are just as biased as them and have
been accused of doing the same things he claims sites critical of
Islam are guilty of. This is the epitome of hypocrisy and rarely are
Muslims called on it.
Almost no Muslims are terrorists, and almost no terrorists are Muslims, but the media is leading people to think the opposite.
Absolute rubbish. As
WikiIslam puts it, "Partly through fear and partly through politically correct hypocrisy, the Western media rarely publish news stories involving Islamic violence and persecution. This may seem a strange statement to some who constantly hear other proclaiming that the media focuses far too much on the negative actions of Muslims, but did you know that in 2008 alone, there were 2,204 separate documented incidents of Islamically motivated violence which led to death? In total there were 10,779 deaths and another 18,213 critically injured. That's more people killed each and every year in the name of Islam, than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. More than 29 people are killed in religiously motivated attacks every single day at the hands of Muslims, but do do you hear of this on the TV or radio? If you spend just one short hour reading through some of the news articles we have compiled, there would have been another one to two deaths attributed to Islam and countless other incidents involving beatings, rapes, abductions, forced conversions, desecration of non-Muslim buildings etc. No other religion or ideology [past or present] inspires the sort of hate that Islam produces."
Just browse through their collection of news articles on the persecution of
non-Muslims,
ex-Muslims,
homosexuals and
women, and ask yourself, "how many of these incidents were covered in the mainstream news?" The answer is, "very few". Western media is inherently Eurocentric and rarely focuses on what happens outside of Europe, United States, Canada and Australia.
Even when it comes to Muslim violence within these areas, the
media does all it can to not focus on them or to obfuscate the religious nature behind them.
A good example of this is the UK media handling of the 2001 "race riots" by "Asians" in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley. In reality, these outbreaks of violence had little to do with race. The government was warned by the head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Gurbux Singh, that more violence was to be expected from "
Young Muslims who feel disenfranchised" living among the many "Muslim" hotspots in the UK.
The same thing occurred amid the news of
widespread grooming of young 'white' girls by 'Asian' men. It was eventually brought to light that these 'Asians' were not only targeting white girls, but
also young girls from Hindu and Sikh communities. Since these "Asians" of Pakistani heritage are targeting white, Hindu, and Sikh children, and Pakistan is
96 percent Muslim, wouldn't a more accurate description be "Pakistani Muslim men"?
Another good example would be how the UK tabloids reported on the 'Asians' who
spat on Remembrance Day poppies and the girl who was selling them. The only "Asians" who are offended by poppies, which they see as a reference to soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., are Muslims, but this is not mentioned in the report. So, again, the use of "Asian" to describe the perpetrators behind these crimes is inaccurate because their race was irreverent to their motivations.
Not only is this poor journalism, but it is demonizing an entire race, the majority of whom are not Muslim. Time and time again I read hostile comments left by whites on news stories about "Asians" where they attack their race for being backward and in need of deportation. Here's a newsflash for my white readers; Hindu, Sikh and Christian Asian gangs do not go around beating up white people, they are too busy
being beaten up by Muslim "Asians".
Whether they accept it or rage against it, Islam is reviving and spreading all over the globe. Muslims, despite the backwardness they are accused of, are thriving wherever they are found
Yes, they are "thriving". Having a
birth-rate that eclipses all other religious groups will tend to do that. These birth-rate statistics are no surprise when you consider that this is what Muhammad instructed his followers to do in order to "
outnumber the peoples". And lets not harbor any fantasies that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Islam is neither the
fastest growing religion by number of adherents or the fastest growing religion by percentage-increase. Even if it were,
Muslims should be ashamed of the "uneven playing field" Islam needs in order to achieve this.
Islam is the rock that will not break, and it is a pity to have to find that out only after having broken one’s self against it.
It is a pity. If only Theo van Gogh and millions of others were told this before they were "broken".
It has corrupted them, rotting away at their integrity
from the inside until they have become all but open hypocrites.
No, it is Qãhırıï, the proven
hypocrite (see above), who has been corrupted by Islam, something
which has rotted away his integrity from the inside until he does not
see anything wrong with belittling an Iranian for not mastering the
English language to the high standards he demands, or does not see
anything wrong with vandalizing someone else's website which
critiques Islam. Being a pious Muslim convert, Qãhırıï sees it as
his duty to attack, slander, and belittle those who do not hold his
medieval superstition up on a pedestal.
A person who is willing to deceive about something can
only be thought to be willing to deceive about anything, and,
perhaps, everything.
A person who is willing to distort the truth once is
willing, more than likely, to distort it again, or all the time.
We should not be convinced by the testimony of one who is
himself or herself confused.
This is an attempt at poisoning the
well, a rhetorical device which can be a special case of argumentum
ad hominem. Knowing very well that Islam is a delusion “built on
sand”, he, just like many other Muslims, is left with no other
option than to make a desperate last-ditch attempt at dissuading
other's from viewing the site and having their superstitions
challenged.
As such, this paper does not
claim to have refuted WikiIslam’s every point. It has not and will
not address every one of their points. It has exposed their willful
dishonesty and malintent, which is sufficient to negate all of what
they have said or will ever say from ever being acceptable.
Even a child would see this for the
pseudo-intellectual nonsense that it is.
If A claims B, C and D, and B turns out
to be incorrect, it does not logically follow that C and D must also
be incorrect.
For example; “WikiReligion” (A) could claim
Muhammad (B), Jesus (C), and Buddha (D) were not warlords. A warlord
is
defined as,
“Noun 1. Warlord: supreme military leader exercising civil power in a region especially one accountable to nobody when the central government is weak”. So, in relation to Muhammad (B) they
would be incorrect. But this does not in any way negate the fact that
Jesus (C) and Buddha (D) do not fulfill the requirements
needed to be defined as Warlords.
However, as a parting note, I must agree with Qãhırıï
on the issue that his “paper” does not claim to have refuted
WikiIslam’s every point. In fact it has refuted nothing, and has
only exposed his own incompetence and over reliance on emotionalism
and logical fallacies.
Update
It appears that the
racist and genocidal editors of the obscure and
dishonest MuslimWiki have been in contact with Qãhırıï. Without notifying readers of the post, he has updated it to include links supplied to him by NarSakSasLee. He now provides a "Read more here." link to
MuslimWiki's article on WikiIslam, and also adds:
"To prove my critique of Islam is not based on my status as a Muslim, I am providing links to non-Muslims who also find it incredibly biased. See what an atheist and the students and staff of the University of Central Florida had to say."
MuslimWiki's article on WikiIslam has been refuted and thoroughly exposed for the rubbish that it is. It is fit to bursting with blatant lies, misrepresented sources, extreme bias, logical fallacies, absurdities and more lies (
read more here).
The atheist Qãhırıï is referring to is Doubting Marcus. He made a post critical of WikiIslam on July 5, 2011, but later publicly apologized to the editors of WikiIslam and humbly retracted his criticism of the site in a post made by him on December 17, 2011 (
read more here).
The "KightsWiki" webmaster's unashamedly hypocritical, inaccurate, biased, and agenda-driven post has also been refuted and thoroughly exposed for the rubbish that it is (
read more here &
an update here).
But, more importantly, like MuslimWiki, Qãhırıï is also lying to his readers.
The students and staff of the University of Central Florida are
not behind that silly blog article which appears to have been posted on the request of MuslimWiki editor NarSakSasLee. For all his feigning of rationalism and intelligence, Qãhırıï doesn't seem to understand what "unofficial" means. Let me explain it in terms he may understand;
Someone could live in the middle of Afghanistan and open up a wiki called "TheWhiteHouseWiki". Like KnightsWiki (which unsurprising is currently inactive), they explicitly state that it is an
unofficial wiki, and then proceed to create an article named "Qãhırıï < IslamoCritic" (not on the main site but on a personal blog), which states that Qãhırıï is "a complete ignoramus who doesn't understand the meaning of "essay" or "unofficial".
Then I (IslamoCritic) am free to write a blog post denouncing Qãhırıï and stating "Here's proof that I am right!!!! Even the President of the United States, his family and his staff agree that Qãhırıï is a complete ignoramus!!!!"
