Leaving Islam





Mr. Mohammed Asadi, is the webmaster of rationalreality.50webs.com  Four years ago he came to this site and debated with the friends in the forum. Here is his previous performance

He writes in good English and has also authored a book. One could say he is part of the Islamic clerisy. Nonetheless once you read his essays you can see his reasoning is no better than that of a 10 year old child and once he gets warmed up he indulges in guff, insolence and insults and uses such a foul language that troglodytes and yahoos look philosophers in comparison. Here is one sample of what this Muslim wrote in the forum. 

“Now, will you take up my challenge to answer my article or will you keep hiding in your damn hole where no light enters but where gasses abound and e-coli has teeming colonies? Your tactics and your claims prove that you are no better than human dung.”

These days he is busy spamming the forum. He posts the same message twenty times and he insults everyone. Check out his messages in the forum He hopes the moderators lose patience and ban him. Then he can say we banned him because of his "superior logic". That is not going to happen. We may clean up the forum of the repeated messages that he posts but we need him as a specimen to show to the world what Islam does to human brain. He does us a great service. If he was not a real person with a site and a book to his name, you could have thought we have invented him to make Muslims look bad. 

And this is a Muslim “scholar”!  Do not assume that other Muslim scholars are different. Once reason fails, all of them drop the mask and show you their real identity. Beneath the smiling veneer of every Muslim, lurks a thug, a hooligan, a ruffian, a hoodlum.  

Now let us see the logical fallacies in which this Muslim engages. Here is his article of which he is so impressed and thinks it’s irrefutable: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14707  

The first paragraph is the introduction to his drivel. It is nothing but boastfulness and bravado. The only part worth mentioning is when he accuses the critics of Islam of using “ad hominem” against Muhammad. This Muslim obviously does not know the meaning of ad hominem. Criticism of Muhammad is not ad hominem. He is the subject of the discussion. Of course we must talk about his crimes and vices. How else can we show that he was a liar, a charlatan, a rapist, or a thief? Ad hominem happens when Muslims, instead of defending their religion, start attacking the person with whom they debate. In this case attacking me, is ad hominem. I am not the one who has made the claim to be a prophet. My character is absolutely irrelevant to my argument. Even if I am shown to be “senile”, as Mr. Asadi calls me, this has nothing to do with my charges against Muhammad. In fact it makes Islam look even more false. If a senile can defeat this so called religion, imagine how foolish it is to believe in it.  

The argument that this Muslim presents in his second paragraph is actually ludicrous. He is saying that since more people die of other not Islam related causes, such as, alcohol, tobacco, and crimes, we should not make too much ado about deaths caused by Muslim terrorists. Instead, we should try to find solutions  to other causes of death. This is what he wrote:


The "lynch-mob" mentality of alarmism, of Islamic ideology as a global threat, that was (and is) commonly portrayed in such writings was also not justified: the number of terrorist acts committed by those who claim to be Muslims and in the "name of Islam" as a percentage of the total number of Muslims, even as a percentage of the total number of crimes committed in the world, are statistically insignificant as cause. The numbers of people harmed by such acts (of criminals) are also far less than the number that have been killed in the name of "democracy and freedom" and free markets: a look at the military adventures of the U.S. elite in the post World War 2 era should suffice as empirical evidence. Also, the FBI estimates that around 19,000 Americans are murdered every year, not by Middle Eastern terrorists but by fellow Americans. The alcohol and tobacco companies by selling highly addictive and harmful products collectively kill over 400,000 Americans a year, year in and year out; however these anti-Islam “humanitarians” do not condemn such “polite” killings by these corporations.


I don’t think this argument really needs any response. Basically what he is saying is: “close your eyes to Islamic terrorism and forget about it so we can continue killing you, bombing you and massacring your children. Meanwhile you think about how to overcome the problem of cigarette addiction.” Is this man a joker or a scholar?  

In the front page of this site I have placed a dynamic link to thereligionofpeace.com As you can see every day there are more terrorist attacks somewhere in the world. Every day tens or hundreds of people are bombed, beheaded, killed and their bodies are torn into pieces by the followers of this "religion of peace". And this Muslim wants us to look the other way and talk about the dangers of smoking. If this was not so tragic, it would be funny.  

This Muslim (I find the word "Muslim" very derogatory and insulting. It is synonymous to stupid, barbarian, thug, arrogant, brain dead, zombie, hooligan, goon, shameless, savage and many other ignoble things. I don’t know whether this most disgusting word elicits the same meanings in you or not. So when I want to show my despise of someone I call him "Muslim". But because Muslims are stupid, they don’t know all these things and they are proud of this name. This is a win/win situation because I insult them and they are happy and thank me for it. Isn't that smart?)  Anyway, this Muslim then makes the ridiculous claim that “Islam has the strongest organized social justice component within its system”. Yes, actually Muslims love big talk. See what he wrote:







Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.