If our goal is peace, how can destroying all of Islam be the answer?
Mere hours after condemning the murder of three Muslim students at Chapel Hill last month, notorious anti-theist Richard Dawkins happily returned to spreading falsehood and hatred of Islam, tweeting, “Alas, criminal individual killers exist. But there’s only 1 ideology now that preaches the legal killing of dissenters. And it isn’t atheism[.]” In insinuating Islam “preaches the legal killing of dissenters,” Dawkins effectively states that the “criminal individual killer” Hicks merely did what Islam also teaches.
This lie is devoid of any sort of compassion, honesty, or integrity.Contrary to Dawkins’ ungodly delusions about Islam, Islam champions universal religious freedom and condemns any worldly punishment whatsoever for those who leave Islam.
Not long after, Dawkins additionally tweeted, “Atheism is not a moral code. Individual atheists have moral codes, usually thoughtful/compassionate, not religiously absolutist like Stalin.”
Dawkins makes three claims. First, that atheism is not a moral code. Fair enough. Second, that atheists have individual moral codes. Seems reasonable. But third, I had to pause when Dawkins ironically blames religious absolutism for anti-theist dictator Stalin’s horrific murder of tens of millions of people. This illogical statement aside, I’ll agree that most atheists I know are usually thoughtful and compassionate.
But it’s the anti-theists like Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, however, who demonstrate anything but thoughtfulness or compassion. In fact, their personal moral code—as described below in their own words—is arguably the ‘mother lode of bad ideas’ and mimics the twisted ideology of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong. And if you’re unsure, here’s the massive difference between atheism and anti-theism—as written by CJ Werleman, a former anti-theist turned atheist.
And as atheist author John Gray points out:
When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union.” Gray continues, “It’s not that atheists can’t be moral – the subject of so many mawkish debates. The question is which morality an atheist should serve.
And that’s the crux of this discussion. While claiming—without merit or logic—moral superiority over Islamic morality, the aforementioned anti-theists have promoted some of the most frightening, immoral, and dangerous ideologies in recent memory. And they’ve done so all the while claiming their views are grounded in science and liberalism. Meanwhile as Gray again points out:
In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral.
The resolute testimonies of Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Hitchens, and Harris attest to this fact, as I detail momentarily.
Imagine a regime leader that hadn’t actually read the Qur’an, but called it the greatest evil on Earth? Imagine a regime leader that advocated the destruction of Islam by any means necessary, including militarily? Imagine a regime leader that wouldn’t think twice about destroying a nation of 80 million Muslims—civilians and all? Imagine a regime leader that defended torturing Muslims, or advocated killing people simply for having dangerous ideas, or approved of pre-emptive nuclear strike on Muslim majority nations?
If I told you these were the state policies of the former militant anti-theistic Soviet Union, which killed up to 127 million people, you might believe me. If I said these were of anti-theistic Chinese regimes, which murdered up to 114 million people, you might also believe me. In fact, in the 20th century alone, Communist and anti-theistic regimes combined for the greatest mass murder in world history—up to 259 million people.
While using their “personal moral codes,” anti-theists like Lenin, Stalin, and Zedong ascended to power and implemented many of the aforementioned anti-theistic policies to facilitate their mass murder. Therefore, humanity is fortunate that today’s most vocal anti-theists like Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Hitchens, and Harris have openly and publicly repudiated such barbaric and ignorant ideology, right?
Well, you see that’s sort of the problem. The aforementioned anti-theist thought leaders have not rejected such barbaric and ignorant ideology. On the contrary, this barbaric and ignorant ideology is the platform on which they’ve built their popularity, book deals, public speaking, and celebrity. And this is why it is so dangerous should the fraudulently “liberal” ideologies of anti-theists gain political backing and state power. Such an episode runs the risk of reviving Stalin style regimes—something humanity cannot afford to have happen for obvious reasons.
Here it is in their words.
Imagine a regime leader that hadn’t actually read the Qur’an, but called it the greatest evil on Earth?
Such a regime leader would reasonably promote antagonistic policies reflective of his ignorant view of the Qur’an. Richard Dawkins proudly tweeted in February 2013, “Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today[.]” As I’ve written before, I know several atheists — many whom I consider trusted friends. But if I were to condemn an entire ideology based on the acts of minority extremists and without once reading what the ideology actually teaches, then you could describe me with many words, but educated would not be among them.
Dawkins is not educated on Islam but has no problem demonizing a faith to which a quarter of the world adheres. Such a bigoted view is neither compassionate nor thoughtful—it promotes fear and is dangerous. Yet, even this cynicism pales in comparison to Dawkins’ anti-theist cohorts.
Imagine a regime leader that advocated the destruction of Islam all forms, including militarily?
Dawkins is a proud supporter of fellow anti-theist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. During a Reason Magazine interview Ayaan Hirsi Ali was asked about her goal of “defeating Islam” and whether she actually meant defeating “radical Islam?” Most atheists I know are thoughtful and compassionate, and distinguish between Islam and radicalism.
Anti-theist Hirsi Ali instead proudly boasted, “No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful.” Reason Magazine tried to reason with her, “We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?”
Hirsi Ali doubled down that since we are “at war with Islam,” we can only defeat [all] Islam with censorship, religious discrimination, and then with something that sounds like a Clint Eastwood script, “you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, this is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore. There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.” When Reason Magazine specifically asked if that included militarily [crushing Islam] Hirsi Ali defiantly concluded, “In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.”
Remember, Hirsi Ali is an anti-theist who was a Dutch PM (before being ousted after it was discovered she deceived the government). Imagine the horror of another world leader (with access to nuclear weapons) and the stated goal of crushing Islam in all forms, including militarily? In fact, the Soviet Union’s anti-theistic state policy used, for example, the League of Militant Atheists, to crush religion with censorship and military power—just as Hirsi Ali advocates doing with Islam. This is liberalism?
Speaking of which, Hirsi Ali isn’t the only anti-theist thought leader advocating military violence.
Imagine a regime leader that wouldn’t think twice about destroying a nation of 80 million Muslims—civilians and all?
Christopher Hitchens desired exactly this for Iran. Journalist Luke Savage captures the horror of Hitchens advocacy of violence against Muslims:
Speaking about the 2004 assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah…Hitchens declared that the “death toll is not nearly high enough” on the grounds that “too many jihadists [had] escaped.” (…but aid groups on the ground called it a “humanitarian catastrophe,” and residents today suffer extremely high rates of birth defects and cancer, apparently from the use of white phosphorous and other chemical weapons by American forces. The increase in cases of leukemia exceeds that which followed the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima.)
Hitchens also praised the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan as “pretty good, because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they’re bearing a Koran over their heart, it’ll go straight through that, too.”
On the subject of jihadists, he declared: “It’s a sort of pleasure as well as a duty to kill these people.” On another occasion, Hitchens stunned even sympathetic members of an audience in Madison, Wisconsin by saying of Iran, a nation of almost 80 million people: “As for that benighted country, I wouldn’t shed a tear if it was wiped off the face of this earth.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
With his personal atheist morals poisoned by anti-theism, Christopher Hitchens glowed at the idea of mass murdering 80 million people. How is this liberal? Again, how is this any different than what Stalin or Zedong advocated? Sadly and moreover, Hitchens gets additional intellectual backing for violence from fellow anti-theist Sam Harris.
Imagine a regime leader that defended torturing Muslims?
We see regularly the atrocities of ISIS on whomever they consider non-Muslim, and such tactics have united the world against them. And we’ve seen the torture approved by George Bush and Dick Cheney, and the program’s epic failure.
These facts notwithstanding, Harris writes, “I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.” After facing intense backlash, rightfully, from virtually everyone Harris elaborates:
If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him).
Ironically, while Dick Cheney uses this twisted logic to support the CIA torture programs, Harris claims, “I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.”
In short, Harris passionately advocates for the barbaric act of torture to win the ‘war on terror’, but hypocritically washes his hands when the world’s greatest military power actually proceeds down the same path he advocates. By his own proud advocacy, however, can there be any doubt Harris would resort to the barbaric act of torture were he ever in political power? This is moral?
Just as curious is Harris’ approval of collateral damage while dropping bombs to kill people. Harris provides the excuse needed to “crush them before they crush us,” as Hirsi Ali demands. And Harris does so by justifying dropping the bombs necessary to likewise fulfill Hitchen’s approval of killing 80 million people in Iran.
Imagine a regime leader that approved of pre-emptive nuclear strike on Muslim majority nations?
Harris writes in The End of Faith:
What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.
Harris can decorate his words all he wants but can’t escape from his core premise that it is moral to initiate nuclear war. More than mere theory, Harris can point to the Islamic Republic of Iran as a perfect example of a nation thought to be pursuing nuclear weapons—and perhaps long range weapons. While Iran has a host of grotesque human rights issues—waging war on foreign nations is not among them. In fact, despite being attacked and suffering thousands of civilian casualties, Iran hasn’t attacked a foreign country in over a century.
Yet, were he on the President’s war cabinet, Sam Harris would push for a pre-emptive nuclear strike simply because of what he believes Iran believes. This myopic and indefensible anti-theistic barbarity aside, it leads to yet another problem with Harris’s extreme anti-theism—he believes in killing people for the crime of “dangerous ideas.”
Imagine a regime leader that advocated killing people for having dangerous ideas?
Sam Harris writes again in The End of Faith, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
Once again, after facing immense backlash from the rest of humanity for obvious reasons Harris tries to backtrack that, “The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion.”
As atheist and author Robert Wright aptly puts it:
All of this points to what I’ve long felt is a fundamental problem with Harris’s world view: in a very broad sense, he judges people by their beliefs rather than their behavior. He even ridicules people for completely innocuous religious beliefs. My own view is that what people believe is their business, so long as they treat other people decently. If Harris focused more on behavior—and paid closer attention to the actual causes of bad behavior—he wouldn’t go around saying such ridiculous, inflammatory things as his recent assertion that Islam is “the mother lode of bad ideas.
Stalin was an anti-theist who killed people merely for believing in propositions Stalin believed were dangerous—i.e. in religion. Harris initially stated as much and now seeks to clarify he meant behaviors. Why he didn’t outright say “behaviors” is curious, and why he hasn’t revised his book to strike that line is telling—but it’s also reflective of the status of his anti-theist and allegedly liberal morals.
Recently, an anti-theist who praises the aforementioned anti-theists sent me a mocking tweet, changing a verse of the Qur’an to read:
[Remember] when Sam Harris inspired the angles, “I am with you, so strengthen those who are atheists. I will cast terror into the hearts of all those who are Muslims, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike them from every fingertip. That is because they opposed Dawkins and Hitchens. And whoever opposes Dawkins and Hitchens—indeed, Harris is severe in penalty.
(I’ve underlined the parts the anti-theist changed). Mocking the Qur’an is a typical tactic of those unable to engage in honest dialogue. But there’s a deeper issue at play here.
The actual verse permits Muslims to fight in self-defense against a preemptively attacking army, per the Qur’an’s detailed rules of war, to protect universal religious freedom. But the anti-theist who sent me the mocking tweet is neither thoughtful, nor compassionate, nor educated on basic Islamic tenets. (Funny how similarly that also describes ISIS).
And addressing the anti-theist’s tweet directly in light of what this article shows, I thank him for proving my point. All accounted—torture, nuclear strike, and killing people for ideas—Harris is influencing people to his barbaric, draconian, immoral, and illiberal anti-theist stance. Humanity is immensely fortunate that Harris is not a world leader with military power. For the last time anti-theists with Harris-brand ideology were in power and “severe in penalty,” the world lost 259 million innocent lives.
Conclusion
American Atheists will host Ayaan Hirsi Ali as their 2015 conference’s keynote speaker—another platform to advance her advocacy to militarily destroy all Islam. Thoughtful atheists are sounding the alarm to move away from such intolerant stances. Meanwhile, an anti-theist will do her best to convert non-violent atheists to an ideology that in the recent past gained military power and killed hundreds of millions of people. Suddenly it isn’t difficult to imagine why it is so objectionable when Dawkins claims to promote investigation and dialogue but condemns what the Qur’an says without having actually read it. Or when Hitchens shamelessly advocates murdering 80 million people without “shedding a tear.” Or when Harris calls Islam the ‘mother lode of bad ideas’ while supporting some of the most barbaric ideologies imaginable—ideologies which Islam categorically condemns by the way.
Yes, atheism isn’t a moral code and atheists write their own code. And the 20th century saw atheists ascend to power under the moral code of anti-theism, and use their allegedly advanced moral code to murder up to over a quarter of a billion people. Today, in the 21st century, anti-theists have ascended to celebrity status to promote frighteningly similar barbaric ideologies—ideologies that would make Stalin proud.
Yes, none of these particular anti-theists lead any regimes—yet. Still, Hirsi Ali is a disgraced Dutch MP, indicating she enacted laws while adhering to her extremist ideology of violently destroying Islam. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to believe such extremist ideology has the potential to radicalize current and future generations. After all, it already happened just a few decades ago in the 20th century. Indeed, it is no accident that state-atheism ruled China still receives the US State Department’s most negative rating for persecuting religious minorities, having, for example, destroyed 400 churches last year alone. In other words, even in contemporary times, state backed anti-theism means horrific persecution and violence against millions.
None of what I’ve said excuses extremists ascribing to Islam. I’ve personally written two books condemning such extremism, am part of a worldwide Muslim community that advocates for better morals and ethics based on compassion, secular governance, and absolute justice, and works actively with theists and atheists alike to serve all humanity.
Moreover, as a Muslim I can logically and factually point to where ISIS terrorism violates every Islamic tenet of morality, and have done so here, here, here, here, and here, for example. Islam has an objective standard by which to determine morality. But as Dawkins admits, since individual atheists have their own moral codes, the draconian standards of morality that anti-theists espouse are inherently subjective.
This is problematic because historically and contemporarily this subjective standard—when backed by state power—has been ultimately ruled by the philosophy of might is right. Returning to Hicks, ironically he had previously posted on his Facebook page that, “I don’t need religion, I have a conscience.” That conscience and subjective morality, catapulted by anti-theism, helped him justify the murder of three innocent Muslims.
Moreover, Hicks’ barbarity is in line with historical anti-theistic standards of morality. As Lenin proudly declared:
In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interest of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.
Thus, in that subjectivity, anti-theists like Hicks who murdered three Muslims in cold blood, cannot be called immoral because, after all, who decides? In the all individualized and subjective moral universe, the illiberal might is right philosophy rules. Likewise, in such a universe, the thought that an anti-theist who is pro torture, pro pre-emptive nuclear strike, pro military destruction of Islam, pro murdering 80 million Muslims, and so on, could once again regain state power becomes all the more frightening and terrifying.
Whether its theist extremism or atheist extremism—extremism has no place in civilized society. The 20th century ideological forefathers of today’s leading anti-theists murdered more people than humanity has ever witnessed. In the 21st century, we cannot let such barbaric anti-theist ideologies—the mother lode of bad ideas—gain additional traction.
United against such barbarism with compassion, education, pluralism, and dialogue—not force—theists and atheists can together stop new atheist extremism in its tracks.
Qasim Rashid is an attorney and best-selling author of EXTREMIST. Connect with him on Facebook and Twitter.
Originally appeared at Patheos
I really would suggest we shouldn’t conflate Atheism with Anti-Theism. As most Atheist are not Anti-Theist. But i agree that hate of any kind is bad. Especially on something that involves people . And Anti-Theist Saying that “I hate people beliefs, But i would never harm religious people.” Is a lot like an Anti-Semite saying “I hate Jewish beliefs. But i would never harm them.” Anti-theism are not bound to humanist values. And for me its not that hard to imagine that Anti-Theism would do under an nihilistic mindset.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that atheists are horrible, bloodthirsty people and atheism is a source of great harm. What do you suggest as a way to “prevent atheism”?
You would need to prevent anyone from ever expressing any doubt, never asking any impertinent question, and executing anyone who you suspected of harboring heresy. You would have to destroy all blasphemers and kill all doubters.
How’s that going, by the way?
I find it hard to believe that any of the atheists mentioned would advocate bombing Iran or the rest of the Middle East in order to destroy Islam. I find it hard to believe, not because I assume they don’t advocate violence, but because such an attack makes no logical sense. It’s a stupid thing for anyone to say, because it would be a stupid policy. Destroying countries in the Middle East would not destroy Islam, anymore that destroying Rome would get rid of Christianity. Large-scale religions aren’t destroyed by warfare. They’re destroyed by education, freedom, science, and apathy. They… Read more »
Many Middle Eastern and African countries consider atheism to be illegal. People who express too much doubt or who identify as atheist are thrown in prison, executed, or locked away permanently. (The U.S. is a bit kinder — we have 7 states that ban atheists from holding public office.)
You raise an interesting point. No one can stomp out atheism, because it’s based on doubt. The most that intolerant religions can do is stomp out overt atheism. They can’t destroy atheists who are in the closet. Churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues have a lot of people in them who are closeted atheists or agnostics.
Atheism is actually a spectrum. Everyone is an atheist to some degree. To be a monotheist means that you reject ALL the gods that humans have ever worshipped, except for one. That means you are 99.9% atheist. As an atheist, I simply go one god further. I reject all gods for the same reason that you reject 99.9% of all gods. My reasons for being an atheist are the same reasons you don’t believe in Zeus. The only way to be completely non-atheist is to believe in every single god that anyone else has ever believed in. You must believe… Read more »
If the argument is that atheists can be horrible, tyrannical people, then yes, that is an accurate statement. If the argument is that atheism is inherently dangerous and religion is therefore better than atheism, then there’s a big problem with logic, evidence, and common sense. What made the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., so brutal were the same things that make theocratic regimes so genocidal: A violent intolerance of other points of view A totalitarian approach to making entirely new people A completely blinkered view of cultural diversity A totally paranoid “us vs. them” mentality that saw traitors… Read more »
Hirsi Ali doubled down that since we are “at war with Islam,” we can only defeat [all] Islam with censorship, religious discrimination Curious. The link you cited actually doesn’t say anything of the kind. On another occasion, Hitchens stunned even sympathetic members of an audience in Madison, Wisconsin by saying of Iran, a nation of almost 80 million people: “As for that benighted country, I wouldn’t shed a tear if it was wiped off the face of this earth.” But at least you cited something for the former claim. This is just hearsay, and while it’s perfectly possible it’s true,… Read more »
“The 20th century ideological forefathers of today’s leading anti-theists murdered more people than humanity has ever witnessed.” This is a falsehood and is disingenuous and dangerous. Religion, in any form, is by far the most murderous invention man has ever thrust upon humanity. Far more people have died in the name of a religion (than in the name of antitheism) and it STILL continues to this day. Religion is used to persecute and murder people everyday. It is time for humanity to grow up and put mythological stories (i.e., religion) in its proper metaphorical place and move on from it.… Read more »
Bruno, atheistic communism killed far more people explicitly in the name of its ideology( purported scientific principles) than all the purported religious wars known. I say purported religious wars because most of the typical examples of religious wars were political wars for power that had nothing to do with the written beliefs of religions being used as a excuse. Atheists like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and minor others both deliberately and through the sponsoring wars and rebellions abroad slaughtered far more people. They made the 20th century the bloodiest century of them all
I think the numbers argument is as much to do with the time those regimes occurred in and the level of human development that existed at the time.
Give someone like Savonarola or Richard the Lionheart a mechanised war machine and an economy the size of Russia’s (post the five year plans) and things would be rather different.
They didn’t kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of their ideology, just like religion, which is just another kind of ideology (he most illogical one). Many, if not most religions used to/act in political ways.
“Behead those who insult Hitchens!” said no atheist ever.
“Islam champions universal religious freedom-
Islam ….condems punishment for those that leave Islam.”
It certainly does not look like this is praxis in Muslim countries.
Maybe the Quran say it is universal freedom in Islam, but it countries with Islam does not follow this rule.
The Quran is also said to tell Islam is a religon of peace. It does not look like that either in praxis…..
Remember that there is a HUGE difference between what a religion IS and what certain powerful leaders (politicians and terrorists) DO under the name of religion. It’s about power, not observing Islam.
What makes the nonviolent Muslims the proper or correct observers of Islam? They are doing exactly the same thing as the violent ones – cherry-picking their ancient texts to justify behaving a particular way, which I can’t say is a particularly efficient way of determining correct behaviour. I get that members of a group – Muslims, in this case – will play the no true scotsman card when it is pointed out that some Muslims act in crappy ways. But I really don’t get why non-Muslims are so desperate to play it as well. It’s wrong to claim that either… Read more »
A good question of ANY religion that claims to be inherently peaceful:
If your religion is a religion of peace, then why aren’t your extremists extremely peaceful?
No religion ever got to be a global religion without being compatible with war and conquest. That includes Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, among others.
By the same token, no religion ever got to be a global religion without having some peaceful characteristics as well.
Why is it so hard for so many people to wrap their minds around the possibility that a religion can be BOTH inherently peaceful AND inherently warlike?
“It’s about power, not observing Islam.” I respectfully disagree with the distinction. Like just about every religion, Islam comes with a set of rules and guidelines, and those rules and guidelines have a LOT to do with power. Power and religious authority are inseparable. “Islam” means “submission,” so observing Islam is inherently about power — who has it, who gets to talk and who doesn’t, who gets to ask questions and who doesn’t, etc. If a religion is subject to interpretation, and those interpretations come with many scriptural quotes that support include violence and dictatorship, then that is a problem… Read more »
You need to focus on the beliefs of the believers. And you are far off base on Hitler, and history in general. “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the… Read more »