"For anyone seeing to understand the headlines, this scholarly examination of Islam should be "must" reading." -- Bookviews.com
This is the first book written by a former Muslim to critically consider the major principles of Islam. From the religion's origins and the nature of Mohammed's message and laws to Islamic views of women, politics and society, this provides a strong critical view of the Koran and its associated societies. -- Midwest Book Review
Product Description
Those who practice the Muslim faith have resisted examinations of their religion. They are extremely guarded about their religion, and what they consider blasphemous acts by sceptical Muslims and non-Muslims alike has only served to pique the world's curiosity. This critical examination reveals an unflattering picture of the faith and its practitioners. Nevertheless, it is the truth, something that has either been deliberately concealed by modern scholars or buried in obscure journals accessible only to a select few.
In 1990 'Free Inquiry Magazine' published an article called "Why I Am Not A Jew" by David Dvorkin. In its introduction the following words appeared:
"Atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers - call them whatever they prefer, virtually all of them share one very large blind spot: they are almost all ex-Christians, and therefore they measure their shiny new non-belief not against belief in general, but against Christianity in particular. It is thus ex-Christians who write the literature that, to the world at large, represents the views of non-believers. Literature that is specifically intended to present the arguments against religious belief tends in fact to present the arguments against Christian belief."
To be sure, Dvorkin's claim has a very solid foundation in fact: most of the modern anti-religion and atheist doctrines and theories stem from a disillusionment and deconstruction of the Christian faith. From Voltaire to Bertrand Russell ("Why I Am Not A Christian", 1927), the main object of scrutiny and scorn has been the Gospel of Christ, a set of tenets and moral teachings Voltaire famously referred to as the "most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Fortunately, for Voltaire, there has been a vast body of research and testimony to substantiate his sacrilegious claims. Unfortunately for Voltaire, not all of them are directed at the Christian faith.
The Eastern faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism) make no claims of exclusivity, i.e. that salvation can only be found in their dogmas. The Western faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), however, do. Each proclaims itself the utter and infallible word of God and seeks to subjugate the world to its will. That's where Ibn Warraq comes in. Like Dvorkin's essay and Russell's famous speech, Warraq takes the standard of Reason, Historical Scrutiny, and Speculation and applies it to Islam, the religion he inherited from his ancestors. What emerges is what can only be termed as a pioneering work, a revolutionary and giant body of research and analysis which stands as the most comprehensive, critical, and detailed look at the revelation, the history, the tradition, and the culture that is Islam.
Make no mistake about it: this book is a devastating piece of anti-Islamic propaganda, an unapologetic denunciation of a religion that has become a cultural and moral wasteland. It is with profound regret and unmitigated rage that Warraq assails Islam for serving as the impetus to History's worst human rights record: the suffocation of Reason and Freedom of Expression, the subjugation of Jews and Christians, the dehumanization of pagans, slaves, and even non-Arab Muslims, and a Holocaust against Womankind that continues unchallenged because of its self-declared 'divine' sanction. It will always baffle me that a majority of this world, a majority that happens to be female, is condemned, oppressed, and exploited by the very same ideology that tells them that their salvation is only attainable through self-effacement, and that they comply, reconciling themselves with such blatant notions of cruelty and misogyny. Such is the malicious legacy of the Patriarchal Faiths. I am not entirely convinced that Islam will survive the mounting call to reform, but what is apparent is that it will be Muslim women who intiate and maintain any such progressive reformation.
"Why I Am Not A Muslim" is important because it looks critically and historically at the whole of "Islam", concluding that it is nothing more than a 7th century Arabian narcissist's attempt to mimic Judeo-Christian monotheism with some Samaritan/Sabian overtones and a whole host of pagan rituals thrown in to make it more appealing to hordes of 'unbelievers'. Did you know, for example, that pagan Arabs worshipped Allah, placing him high in the hierarchy of their deities? That Muhammad was rejected by all the monotheists of his homeland (Jews, Christians, Sabians, Hanafis) before claiming his own 'perfect' monotheism? That the pagans had their own pilgrimage rituals which included running between holy sites and casting stones, as does the Muslim Hajj ritual? That the parallels between the prophethoods of Moses and Muhammad are too identical to have been distinct? This is but a minute sampling of what the book offers. Warraq's conclusions are indeed audacious and he blasphemes in virtually every sentence; however, it is difficult not to agree with his conclusions because they are based on historical accounts and not theologically inspired ones. Warraq examines not only the expected subjects (Muhammad, the Koran, the Origins of Islam, the status of Muslim Women and religious minorities) but some unlikely ones as well: the relationship between Islam and Totalitarianism, the compatibility of Islam with Democracy and Human Rights, the influence of Greek Science on Muslim Culture and, probably most telling of all, the history of atheists and freethinkers in Islamic civilizations. Truly, he has assembled an awesome body of research, and the wealth of information which resides in its pages makes it a valuable tool not only in Islamic critique but also in terms of the only subject that really matters: human nature and the ways of human thought. Ultimately, Warraq declares that Islam is just another name for the Arab Imperialism the peninsula witnessed between the 7th and 9th centuries.
Reading "Why I Am Not A Muslim" was a profoundly eye opening experience, even for someone like me who comes from a Sunni Turkish background. For example, I knew, as most people do, that Muhammad was a skilled general and a charismatic politician. I knew that he had fought in wars to defend his people, and, as happens in war, he killed some of his opponents. In spite of this, the image in my mind of Muhammad was always that of a gentle, reflective individual, in effect a Bedouin Jesus. According to Warraq and his sources, a completely disparate image emerges: gone is the humble messenger of God, and in his place is raised a merciless, bloodthirsty warlord, a man who spread the word of God by threatening lives instead of appealing to spirituality. A man who butchered 900 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe, taking the women and children as slaves and keeping the chief's daughter, Saffiya, among his collection of wives. He had hundreds of political opponents assassinated and looted their material and sacred resources. He had a mother of five killed while she was suckling her newborn. He had between 15 and 25 wives, and perhaps countless concubines. Here is a man who, at the age of 51, consummated with a nine-year-old girl, his child bride Aisha, whom he married when she was six (yes, six). The amazing thing is these accounts cannot be dismissed as `racist orientalism' for they are themselves corroborated by the Islamic tradition. Whether or not this tradition is reliable (or even credible) is a separate issue, for we have scant evidence directly linked to the life of Muhammad (or, as he was known to his tribesmen before his prophet days, Abul Kassim) but it is the tradition upon which the Islamic foundation is laid and is the only one we are given to consider.
Like Warraq, I too am an ex-Muslim, though I excised my Islamic identity several years before I had ever heard of "Why I Am Not A Muslim". I picked it up out of sheer curiosity and amazement that someone had dared to compose such a tome. I thought that if an ex-Muslim was courageous enough to take Islam head-on, in spite of what had happened to Salman Rushdie after the publication of "The Satanic Verses" (a book which is comparatively much kinder to Islam), then I, as someone who understood his positions and shared his dismay, had an obligation to read it. I would thereby recommend it to anyone with an interest in Islam, though it seems unlikely (and understandably so) that any Muslim would ever consider reading it.
Liberal intellectuals in the west are taken to task in the final chapter, but it is a criticism which must be considered as a double-edged sword for both Warraq's anti-Islamism and his Humanism; I can empathize with his frustrations. Islamic fundamentalists are ideologically similar to conservative right-wingers: if you have any doubts, look at the completely illogical and self-serving justifications offered by George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden for their voluntary wars- both claim God is on their side and both seek support by playing to the fears and ignorance of the masses. They are, however, politically opposed to each other (it's called OIL). Leftist intellectuals have made heavy allowances for the understanding and acceptance of Islam and other 'backward' cultures, offering some deeply convoluted apologies for its inhumanity in an attempt at hypertolerant inclusion. As a liberal, I understand the desire to respect and appreciate everyone's right to practice religion. As humanists, and as those who champion human rights (and let's be honest here- this is the domain of activist liberals in the West) we cannot overlook those same human rights in the name of multicultural tolerance. Yes, we are all entitled to believe what we want and to act accordingly, but we must insist that all rights are guaranteed to all human beings, even if those rights are in opposition to certain religious dogmas. To liberals, nothing is more important than being fair, open-minded, and inclusive. Warraq must concede that humanist values have been propagated by liberal reformers. But we liberals do have a standard to bear, and not all ideologies will be able to meet it. We must work for their reform, and this is especially true of Islam and its disastrous human rights record. Unfortunately, any criticism of Islam is immediately classified as racist orientalism or western imperialism, even if the...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
In Why I Am Not A Muslim, Ibn Warraq, exposes the bitter truth about Islam without sugarcoating it. He is learned and his book is well documented. He lashes out at the western intellectuals who instead of condemning the assassination order of a savage man like Khomeini against Salman Rushdi, chose to criticize Rushdi for his book The Satanic Verses because it was not "politically correct". Warraq talks about the brutal treatments of all those who fell under the domination of Islam, from the time of Muhammad to the present days. He talks about the minorities, philosophers, women and slaves in Islam. Jews were massacred and exiled by Muhammad in Medina and Kheibar; their belongings were distributed among the "believers", their women and children taken as slaves. This heinous act of barbarism was repeated time and again throughout history with Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and in recent years with Ahmedies, Baha'is and other minorities in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, India, Syria and everywhere Islam reined.
Warraq talks about the origin of Islam, its pagan background and the influence of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism on Muhammad. He talks about the origin of Allah in Arab culture, about the early days of Muhammad as a preacher and his rivalry with another storyteller "Al Nadir" and his revenge against him. Warraq traces back the origin of many Islamic rituals to Arab superstitions and Muhammad's strange belief in jinns, demons and other shadowy beings. He also describes how Muhammad rehashed the biblical nonsense about creation, Noah's Ark, birth of Christ etc. while misunderstanding a lot of it, like confusing Mary the mother of Christ with Miriam sister of Aaron, or the Christian belief in Trinity. You will learn about Muhammad's bizarre view of cosmology, science, history, and medicine. (He prescribed drinking the urine of camel as a remedy against stomachache!).
Then you will learn about Muhammad's metamorphosis from preacher to despot. How his call for tolerance, when he was still in Mecca and weak changed to the cry of killing and looting when he became powerful in Medina. You will learn how Muhammad encouraged his handful of followers to attack the caravans, kill the men, rape the women and bring the booty (20% for himself) to please Allah, while assuring them that if they are killed their rewards will be young boys, rivers of wine, and many hurries in the other world. All what Warraq says is backed by Quran and Ahadith.
The reader becomes familiar with Muhammad's favorite way of eliminating his opponents, namely assassination. Asma Bint Marwan a poetess who wrote against the prophet was assassinated by his order in the middle of the night while nursing her infant. Her five small children where forced to convert to Islam. Muhammad's hit list also included Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi who spoke against him and had to be taken out traitorously. This policy was adopted by Muslims throughout the history and is being practiced up to this day. What we call terrorism, to a Muslim is Jihad (holy war). The much-publicized fetwa against Rushdi is an example. Among other things we learn about Muhammad's preference for young girls (Ayesha was 9 years old when he consummated his "marriage" with her) rather at an advanced age and how he is unabashed to make Allah reveal Quranic verses to justify his lust for women and his sexual appetite.
Warraq makes a thorough study of the totalitarian nature of Islam. He even goes as far as to compare the impact of monotheism on human rights versus polytheism and atheism. For all those who still wonder why Muslims hate so much the west I recommend reading this book. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this subject.
Warraq talks about "Arab Imperialism and Islamic Colonialism". He explains eloquently how through Islam, many civilized nations lost their identity, their dignity and humanity to bow in front of a savage god of a bunch of uncultured Arabs and follow the wimps of a fanatic and schizophrenic bloodthirsty madman of Arabia. Islam is the enemy of science, of freethinking, of reason and of human rights. It acts as a powerful break on the advancement of civilization. Warraq keenly points out that "Islamic Civilization" is a contradiction in terms. You can either be Islamic or civilized. In another place he argues that also "Islamic Philosophy" is a contradiction in terms, because philosophy was regarded as a "foreign science, which led to heresy, doubt, and total unbelief". Brilliant minds like Zacharia Razi and Avicena never believed in Islam and were attacked by Muslims. More recent intellectuals and freethinkers don't fare better. For example Ali Dashti, the brilliant scholar and the author of "23 years"; a book written about Muhammad and his 23 years of prophetic life, was incarcerated while in his 80s during Khomeni's rule and died in prison. In Warraq's own words: "Thus we had the spectacle of periodic persecution of various group considered either doctrinally suspect or politically subversive; individuals (philosophers, poets, theologians, scientists, rationalists, dualists, freethinkers, and mystics) were imprisoned, tortured, crucified, mutilated, and hanged; their writings burned. Significantly, none of the heretical works of Ibn Rawandi, Ibn Warraq, Ibn al-Muqaffa, and al-Razi has survived. Other individuals are forced to flee from one ruler to another more tolerant ruler (e.g. al-Amidi). Some were exiled or banished (Averroes). Many were forced to disguise their true views and opinions by difficult or ambiguous language. Those who managed to get away with blasphemy were those protected by the powerful and influential."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Despite what some reviewers have said I found this book to be quite moderate and conservative. The author clearly knows his materials, has thought his thesis through, and doesn't make cheap shots or take short-cuts. His acknowledgement of the high achievements of Islamic civilisation, as in the areas of science and poetry (just to name a couple, he could have added architecture and other outstanding accomplishments but that would just repeat points he has already made) reveal a good appreciation of the strengths of Islamic culture. But oh, someone had to say it; Islamic law, the treatment of women, and inherent extremism (again just a few examples among many) fall woefully short of what other great civilisations attained and ill-equip Muslims for dealing with the modern world with its secularism, rationalism, and egalitarianism. I was just left with a great sadness after completing the book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Thanks for your feedback.
We appreciate your effort to make our site better. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to all submissions made via this form.
See all 100 books this book cites
