A Glimpse into the Muslim Mind

This Muslim is not a scholar nonetheless his argument is important because it shows the shallowness of the mind of an average Muslim.  

He engages in all sorts of logical fallacies. In Persian/Arabic we call it Maghlateh. Being a Persian he is familiar with this word.  

The first fallacy is the fallacy of Pititio Principii or circular reasoning. You commit this fallacy when you assume that a conclusion is true without having yet proven it. This slave of Allah claims that the book of God should not be logical and need not be in conformity with the science. Who said such thing? How did he come to this absurd conclusion? If that is the case how can we distinguish a true prophet from a charlatan? If the message of God need not be logical, by what means can we know Muhammad was telling the truth and say, David Koresh was not?  

Then he says the Quran should not be taken literally but should be interpreted spiritually. This is the same fallacy as above. Muhammad says that the sun sets in murky waters, the moon was split while each part of it could be seen from one side of the mount Hira, mountains are like pegs that are there to keep the earth from shaking, stars are in the lower heaven while the Moon is above them, and many other absurdities. What are the spiritual meanings of all these asinine statements? 

Muhammad claimed that his book is clear and that there is no doubt in it. If that is true and these are metaphors, what these metaphors mean? Where is the explanation? There are hundreds of Islamic sects each understanding the Quran in a different way and shedding other’s blood for understanding it differently. All because the Quran is not clear. If the Quran had said that the Jews are “like” monkeys, we would have concluded that Allah is using a metaphor to express his disdain of the Jews. But the Quran says clearly that Allah transformed them into swine and apes and he repeated this in three places. This is not a metaphor but a statement of a historic event that is obviously false, irrational and unscientific. Why should we believe in the gobbledygook of the Quran and not in the drivels of David Koresh or those of  Musaylama the prophet pretender of Arabia whom Muhammad called “the lair”? How can we be sure that Koresh and Musaylama were lying and Muhammad was not? This is an important question. We must use the same parameters for all claimants. What did Muhammad have that Koresh, Jim Jones or any other cultist did not?  

If the tale of the 72 virgins, rivers of wines and all those goodies promised for the believers in the afterlife are allegorical, why mention them in such details?  Wouldn’t it have been better to just say that paradise is beyond description and leave it at that? If Muhammad had said that the pleasures of paradise are more intense than having an orgy with 72 virgins, it would have been clear that he is using a metaphor. The description of the virgins and pearly boys in the Quran are not allegorical. Muhammad illustrated the paradise in detail and he explained the bounties of it as if they were facts not allegories. What is the spiritual significance of these celestial virgins and pearly boys if they are not actual sex objects?  

If the jinns and the virgins, the ascension and the description of the embryo that are clearly nonsense are to be interpreted allegorically, can't we deduce that also Gabriel and Allah are metaphors? What gives us the authority to decide which verses are allegorical and which once are not when all of them are stated as facts and are given the same emphasis? 

This Muslim then engages in another logical fallacy and writes: “Since holy books are not literal and they are not practical or logical, they are spiritual.”  

This fallacy is called false dilemma. You commit this fallacy when you offer two propositions that are both false and then say if the proposition A is not true then the proposition B must be true. If we had only two options then the argument would be valid. For example, you are either pregnant or you are not, or, you are either a man or a woman. The fallacy happens when there are more alternatives. Claiming that since an alleged holy book is not logical or scientific it is spiritual is a fallacy. The answer could be that the book is false, satanic, and not holy at all.  

Muslims take it for granted that the Quran is the book of God. This is again a petitio principii. Another variety of this circular reasoning is when they say since the literal interpretation of the Quran makes Muhammad look like a criminal and we "know" that is not possible because he was a perfect man and a messenger of God, then those verses must mean something else or the hadith must be false.  

In my discussion with Ayatollah Montazeri he committed the same fallacy when he tried to deny the fact that Muhammad was a pedophile. He said the marriage of Muhammad with Aisha was out of political expediency to foster his relationship with his friend Abu Bakr otherwise it is not natural for a 54 year old man to have sexual feelings for a 9 year old girl. This is a false dilemma. There is a third explanation and that is some men are sociopaths and they get aroused sexually by children. They are called pedophiles. Of course it is not natural, but it exists. Since Muslims do not want to consider this alternative, they engage in all sorts of logical fallacies to avoid it.  

The claim that the Quran is a spiritual book must be proven first. Where is the proof that those who follow the Quran are more spiritual than those who do not follow it? Look at the state of the umma all over the world. Muslims are more war mongers, more beastly and more selfish than non-Muslims. The history and the present of Islam are filled with bloodshed and killings. These bloodsheds started by Muhammad himself. Are assassinations, murder, genocide, raid, pillage, rape, etc. spiritual acts? Can we call a person who commits these crimes a spiritual person? Muhammad committed all these things and Muslims have been doing the same ever since.  

What about this very Muslim who tells us Islam is a religion of peace and that all the wrongs we see are the faults of the Muslims who do not follow Islam’s spiritual teachings? Is he following those spiritual teachings? This man wrote to me threatening to assassinate me if I do not stop exercising my God given and first amendment right to freedom of speech. What spirituality is he talking about? If the religion that he is upholding has not been able to curve his criminal instinct how is he going to make us believe that it is a spiritual religion? The proof is in the pudding. If Islam is all about spirituality, why is he threatening people with murder? 

Would he have threatened to kill me if he was not a Muslim? Of course not! So what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that because he is a Muslim, he has become a terrorist, ready to shed the blood of someone whom he has not met and does not know. This intense hatred is caused by his faith in Islam.  

How would he explain this? I can bet that he will say. “Ah, but I am not a good Muslim”.  This is another fallacy. This is called “Having Your Cake” or diminished claim. You commit this fallacy when you assert something but when pressed for proof you back out.  If Islam is spiritual and peaceful and you are such a devout follower of it that you are ready to kill for it, why you are not spiritual and peaceful? What has been the effect of Islam on you? You are an assassin, a thug and you want us to believe Islam means peace and it makes its followers spiritual? But if you are just a lukewarm Muslim and you don’t follow Islam to the letter, then why you want to kill for it? Shouldn't you first practice it in your life and set the example for others? If it is so good as you say, why you don't follow it? 

Muslims commit this fallacy a lot. They make the assertions but shirk from proving them. In fact this fallacy was committed by Muhammad himself who instead of giving the proof of his claim he declared those who do not believe deaf, blind and dumb who do not understand, or he said that it would make no difference if you tell them or not because they would not agree anyway, or Allah has sealed their hearts and hence no one can help them. All these are logical fallacies. They are devised to bail out from giving the proof. 

Do you see the irrationality of the Muslim mind? The truth is that this Muslim is a murderer because of his faith in Islam. If he was not a Muslim, he would not have contemplated killing me for speaking against Islam. Islam is not making people peaceful and spiritual but rather assassins and thugs.  

<<  back    next >>