One of the new features in the Revised and Expanded edition of Did Muhammad Exist? is that I discuss charges that the inquiry itself is “Islamophobic.” There is a surprising number of supposed scholars and academics who use this word to register their objections. I show why they’re wrong and why the term “Islamophobia” has no place in genuine academic inquiry. Preorder your copy here.
gravenimage says
‘You can’t question Muhammad’s existence! That’s Islamophobic!’
………………
Of course, this is ludicrous–any ideology is open to questioning, including whether its figures existed. Anyone who condemns this question even being asked shows how important this book is.
mortimer says
-The Islamophobia slander is actually a form of verbal jihad … this crafty deceit-word is a perfect example of taqiyya and kitman.
Slanders and ad hominem attacks have no place in academic discourse. Either a scholar can counter an argument with facts and reasoning that is convincing or he fails to do so.
Slander is not a valid academic argument.
The fact remains that Muslims cannot find solid 7th century proof for the existence of Mohammed or for the existence of the Koran or the existence of Islam when such evidence should be plentiful where there was plentiful amounts of papyrus and many literate people to record those events and document them.
The absence of evidence is indeed strong evidence of absence.
nosmo king says
It also shows the limitations of those who condemn the asking of the question.
nosmo king says
It also shows the limitations of those who condemn the asking of the question.
mortimer says
Questioning Mohammed’s existence is no more ‘phobic’ than questioning the existence of Robin Hood, Beowulf or King Arthur. They are all legendary and seen to be so by the very nature of the source texts upon which their legends are based..
OTTER says
We should have an annul world wide ‘ That’s not Mohammed the Prophet’ cartoon drawing competition.
First prize is exclusive honeymoon with ‘ that’s not Aisha the child bride’
Jim says
It might be better if he did not exist, because then one could reimagine him as a nice person, more like Jesus and less like Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler. No offense intended to pious Muslims, but who would want to be like him as portrayed in the scriptures? Am I missing something? Or do we just ignore most of the descriptions of his 100 jihadist actions in his last ten years. Should we only concentrate on the early years when he converted almost no one?
maria says
there are no “pious” muslims. Their motto and idol is killing, hatred and power over all humanity.
gravenimage says
All this means is that many Muslims are committed to Islam. This is objectively the case. “Pious” does not necessarily mean “good”–it depends on the creed.
Bikinis not Burkas says
This Australian has ordered your hard cover edition from Amazon.
Ecosse1314 says
This cheap Scotsman has ordered the kindle edition.
JimJFox says
Kindle? Searched but didn’t find it!
Ecosse1314 says
Pre-ordered it last week. £7.99 I think
gravenimage says
Jim, check the link in the story. You can get the Kindle edition for $9.99.
Mike Ramirez says
Hmmm…apparently, the “supposed scholars and academics” are not aware that even the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) does not consider questioning Islam or Muslims to be “Islamophobic.” Although, at times, CAIR still needs to be reminded of what they wrote in 2013 when describing Islamophobia in America:
QUESTIONING ISLAM or MUSLIMS IS NOT ISLAMOPHOBIA (caps, mine)
“It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Equally, it is not Islamophobic to denounce crimes committed by individual Muslims or those claiming Islam as a motivation for their actions.”
( TABLE of CONTENTS: Council on American-Islamic Relations Page ix )
Link to CAIR 2013 Report
Source http://www.islamophobia.org/images/pdf/Legislating_Fear_FINAL.pdf
Prior to CAIR’s report, I began questioning Islam after researching teachings from the Qur’an and Ahadith to prove that Muslims Do Not worship the same God as the Judeo-Christian faith, even though Vatican !! claims that Catholics and Muslims worship the same deity (Catechism 841).
Questionable Teachings of Islam: One Billion People Deceived
http://www.Starman3000.com
gravenimage says
CAIR has claimed that the Danish Muhammed cartoons are “racist”–their claim that criticizing Islam is OK is not borne out by their responses to actual criticism of Islam. This is Taqiyya.
Mike Ramirez says
Yes, agreed that taqiyya is the motive behind CAIR’s statement about questioning Islamophobia.
It’s all show yet can be brought up to their attention as a reminder of their own words. However, as you already know, Islam
literally forbids drawings or pictures depicting any living thing. In the case of Muhammad cartoons, it is made worse and, thus, punishable by death for insulting their “prophet.” That would not be deemed racism as much as being a violation of Islamic law, whether a Muslim or non-Muslim is the person who draws the picture. American legislators need to understand the mindset of Muslims; Sharia (Allah’s law) supersedes man’s law in any country – including the host country. As long as Islam is protected as a religion and not identified as an Enemy Threat Doctrine we will continue having this problem in all Western Civilization.
gravenimage says
Islam is a religion by all definition. That does not mean that we have to allow the horrors of Shari’ah law, though–including blasphemy laws,
PRCS says
Wana really piss ’em off?
There’s no Allah, either.
Francis says
Hatem Bazian (a professor no less-at Berkley I believe) once said that claiming Muhammad authored the Quran is Islamophobic. I was going to ask how he could get to be a prof. but then I remembered we have the execrable David Miller at Bristol Uni. in the UK.
gravenimage says
Bazian is an ugly piece of work. More on him here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/tag/hatem-bazian
Mike Ramirez says
Gravenimage, responding to your reply to my comments where you wrote that “Islam is a religion by all definition,” see, that is exactly the reason why Islam will continue to thrive and continue its goal for global dominance by engaging in deception, stealth jihad, civilization jihad and jihad by terror strikes upon non-Muslim societies. Muslims are practicing their religion so, even though the West may not like it, the West is still allowing Islam to continue its goal to defeat Western Civilization. With that, Islam has been handed the advantage to guarantee their victory rather than being identified as an Enemy Threat Doctrine; a clear and present danger to Western Civilization.
gravenimage says
Mike–with all respect–your idea that we have to change our language and fly in the face of reason for Islam in order to oppose it makes no sense.
Charles Martel did not demand we change our language for Islam, Jon Sobieski did not demand we change our language for Islam, Winston Churchill did not demand that we change our language for Islam–yet their refusing to throw out reason did *not* prevent them from successfully opposing Islam.
Islam did not encroach on the west under their efforts–quite the opposite, in fact.
I think that our taking a rational, clear-eyed look at Islam is best–and this includes realizing that while Islam is indeed a religion that does not mean that it is a benignant one. Islmam is in fact an evil religion. This has happened before, with the worship of Baal and the Aztec religion–both of which involved human sacrifice.
Mike Ramirez says
gravenimage, ” taking a rational, clear-eyed look at Islam” is exactly my point in needing to declare Islam as an Enemy Threat Doctrine to all of Western Civilization, as I have mentioned before. It needs to be classified as a religious death cult that is injurious to its own followers, not only to the “Unbelievers.” Until that happens, Islam will continue to grow in strength as a religious ideology that is protected by the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. “Counter Jihad” is not the approach that will solve this problem. Jihad is only the symptom of the main source for its motivation; ISLAM. Thus, “Counter Islam” should be the rational clear-eyed approach that not only defeats that ideology but helps set 1.6 Billion followers to be free from the control by tyrannical threats and fear that they have to endure, under penalty of death for apostasy. This is a dangerous religious cult that Western Civilization doesn’t know how to deal with and for that reason Islam has been given the advantage and continue thriving as an Enemy Threat Doctrine. In this case, a fight to the end means only one winner.