Freethinkers – Are they “Morons from Outer space”?

by Yamin Zakaria

Editor's Note: Yamin Zakaria is a London-based political Islamist. Though MND does not subscribe to the view of Mr. Zakaria, we nevertheless will publish his work as a public service to those who wish to understand the 'idea-gap' between us and them...

There are freethinkers from planet earth and then there are ‘freethinkers’ with Muslim ancestry living in the West; they must have come from planet blob [1] because their logic and commonsense works in reverse. All of them have found the ultimate ‘truth’ of life, which is the constant foul mouthing of Islam and Muslims lurking behind websites usually with their pseudonyms. Moronically, they even use values that are rooted in Islam or religion in general, to attack Islam and Muslims.

Let us assume that Islam is evil, but what alternative do these ‘freethinkers’ have to offer, that is so fantastic to humanity, and where are their followers espousing are the answers to life? An uncomfortable question for them, as often we get a deafening silence; those who have attempted to provide their alternative answer to life, have ended up making amoebas look intellectual as my examples will shortly illustrate. Perhaps, this is why most tend to remain anonymous, using pseudonyms, as it easier to crawl back under the rock they came from when they face humiliation. I have been given a wealth of material by two ‘freethinkers’ in particular, and they highlight the case against ‘freethinkers’ better than anyone. Here is a replay of some of the dialogue with them.

Ali-Sina

Those who remember my debate with Ali Sina (www.icssa.org/yameendebate.html) which ended suddenly, after he terminated the debate and refusing to publish my final responses on his website. Why does a ‘freethinker’ suddenly resort to censoring? Is it a sign of a fanatical primitive mindset? How can anyone brag about their ‘freethinking’ credentials and then be the first to run from a dialogue. But Ali Sina’s decision to abruptly end the debate, after he stated that he boasted of preparing to launch an offensive, is surely a clear indictment on the outcome of the debate. Yet, for some reason, Sina and his few followers insist that he won the debate. Laughably they are like an army retreating from the battlefield, waving the victory flag in their hometown, instead of inside enemy territory! This speaks volumes about these so-called freethinkers or shall I say non-thinking “morons from outer space”.

Sina bragged about his phantom $50,000 dollar ‘freethinkers’ challenge, when, like any reasonable party I asked for independent proof and adjudication, he not only refused evidence the money existed, but hilariously insisted that he needed to be the participant in the debate as well as the judge, to decide victory and award of the monies; ‘freethinkers’ looked more like ‘fraudsters’ at this point. His anger and frustration over these points was all too visible. In order to hide his shame, Sina projected his resignation by declaring victory, naturally like his phantom $50,000 challenge; he is the participant and the judge!

Anyway, ‘Prophet’ Sina was brave enough to state his alternative solution, the eternal truth of life, which he called the “golden rule,” even though there was not a section on the “golden rule” on his website. By the time he finished elaborating on how it can be applied to all aspects of life, it ended up being a liability with all its inconsistencies and exemptions, and it was not so ‘golden’ as it was ‘leaden’. Proving the “golden rule” as a universal criterion was supposed to be the basis for launching Sina’s allegation against the Prophet (SAW). Yet, many of his supporters are wondering why I did not defend the charges against the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), but how can I as he never managed to bring them forward, in fact he resigned from the debate, prior to laying his allegations.

During the debate, this freethinking Tarzan first told the world that praying as a Muslim was a despicable act, similar to that of beasts, then stunningly was caught praying in that way, by his own admission. This must have been a bitter pill for his supporters that their leader in private, prayed as the Muslims and then publicly was the hypocrite leading them. Likewise he called Muslims animals, this he did after admitting that his parents were Muslims, the combination of these statements clearly sees Sina laying humiliation on his parents and himself. I am pretty sure after exposing that to his supporters, he must have felt more like the chimp rather than Tarzan, assuming that Sina understood the implications of his own words!

So what has been the outcome? Sources tell me that Sina has become relatively quiet; the debate must have been a demoralising experience. Anyway, to further highlight the inconsistencies amongst the ‘freethinkers’ I examined Sina’s reference to Mahatma Ghandi, whom he believed supported his ‘golden rule’ and ‘freethinkers’ propositions, again they were humiliated by their lack of understanding and intellect, I provided various quotes from Mahatma Gandhi showing that the man in fact praised the Prophet and Islam. Sina, no doubt embarrassed by these facts, removed the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and his quotes from his website. Any normal person would have removed it immediately but I guess someone needed to get through to Sina’s ‘scholarly’ mind, that you cannot use Gandhi’s statement and picture on an anti-Islamic website, since Gandhi was a staunch supporter of Muhammad (SAW). See what I mean by commonsense and logic working in reverse gear for these aliens from planet blob!

The Lambent ‘Wit’ (TLW)

He ‘humbly’ calls himself the “Lambent Wit” (literally meaning glowing house of wit) and then has the audacity to call others arrogant! This fellow, also classifies himself as a ‘freethinker’ but unlike Sina, when he was cornered, he started to delete my email responses while he kept sending me his, something that he admitted to in anger. So, is this is how ‘freethinkers’ understand a two-way dialogue? What happened to their power of ‘logic’ and ‘freethinking’ capabilities, or did it blow a fuse, as their circuits must have gotten overloaded, faced with all those opposing arguments. Anyway let us proceed in examining some of his arguments.

A) Secularism

A while ago, he stated that the rise of secular society led to the growth of science and technology in the West, no dispute here, but I pointed out that it was the same secular societies that used those scientific achievements to colonise pillage and commit genocide. This continues today in places like Iraq and Palestine by nations that openly professes to be secular. His (TLW) immediate defence was that those actions have no relationship with secularism, as nobody kills or colonises in the name of secularism. For his statement to be consistent, we then have to ask did Newton, Rutherford, Einstein, Galileo, Darwin and others make those landmark scientific advancements in the name of secularism. Why attribute one aspect to secularism and deny the other? Obviously the Lambent ‘Wit’, using his ‘wit’ loves to cherry pick, and like his ‘freethinker’ buddies, fails to see the inconsistency in their arguments.

However, he eventually responded by claiming that nations engaged in colonialism, genocide was driven by greed not by secularism where as the scientist made progression as the secular nations imparted freedom for them to work without religious constraints. So what motivated the scientists then? Clearly, the absence of secularism as a motivating factor is in both cases.

Secondly, freedom imparted to the scientists was also imparted to the secular governments. It is secular system that allows greed to flourish where man is sovereign defining the values and interests to pursue. Hence, colonisation and genocide was the result, it became a common feature of all the leading secular nations for centuries. It is fact that all the Capitalist societies flourish on greed and imperialism are secular nations! The problem for Lambent Wit is he wants to glorify secularism by cherry picking the scientific achievements under it while discard the inconvenient side-effects of centuries of colonisation and genocide, that is still talking place in front of our eyes.

Nobody acts in the name of secularism, because it is merely the basic framework that makes man sovereign, thus everything that follows from that framework must be secular in nature, otherwise who can say what values and actions are secular as there is no holy book of secularism. So, I also asked the Lambent ‘Wit’, how do you evaluate what actions and values are compliant to secularism. A very uncomfortable question as it means he is committing himself to a position where he too can be judged. This is what the freethinkers always avoid, as they want to be the judge, jury and executioner dishing out anti-Islamic diatribe. So, instead of answering the question, to cover his weakness, he starts to ramble about theocracy and Islam - not so witty from the Lambent ‘Wit’.

B) Prophets (SAW) Marriage to Zainab (RA).

The Lambent ‘Wit’ found the marriage of the Prophet (SAW) to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ (Zaid Bin Harith) offensive because he likened that to marrying his daughter. So I humbly asked him why he thought it was immoral to marry even your real daughter. Using his sole criterion of ration, one can actually argue in favour of such things. How did he arrive at that ‘immoral’ judgement, as there is no universal morality? Surely a ‘freethinker’ knows that value based judgements are simply localised experiences and judgements from sources that vary with time, unless they are divinely inspired? Surely as a ‘freethinker’ he is not bound to any religious principles, or is he, but has not fathomed the consequences of his judgement? His dogmatic and faith-based secular religion prevented him from answering these points as it leading him to heresy.

Since, he constantly brags about his ‘rationality’, so I asked him: if rationality is the only criterion, then why draw distinction between marrying your mother, sister or any other woman. Again silence as to where he got his convictions from and what proof of their being any more correct. Clearly he was using Islamic or religious values that he inherited to pass judgement. Even the notion of marriage, which is rooted in religion, should be discarded by these freethinkers. But for some strange reasons they practice the very things that they denounce. Most people would call that hypocrisy but for people from planet Blob this is normal.

C) Why do I live here in the West?

After failing to debate the points, it has to get personal and these migrant-coolies posing as freethinkers, begin to sound like the racist right after a while. This is after lecturing about ‘free’ speech, which incidentally means for them a license to abuse Islam and Muslims; otherwise they would recognise their own hypocrisy when they advocate, that we should not criticise the Western governments, while we live here in the West. I thought expressing dissension was at the core of ‘free’ speech? Again they are exhibiting mind ogling hypocrisy.

If I applied his reasoning, those who caused the advancement of secularism by criticising the status quo from within should have also left their lands, and invoked those criticisms from a distance. So, if the whole planet became unified with one ideology, then to criticise you should migrate to planet Blob. Hence ‘free’ speech according to these freethinkers is you agree with them, else you should leave the country! To me, such freethinkers sound more like non-thinking fascists.

As to who should reside where, who can dictate that? Muslim and non-Muslims migrants are living in the West, as law abiding citizens, in contrast to Western imperialist nations pillaging other nations. The West would not have economic migrants, if they did not make other nations so unliveable and ungovernable.

Conclusions

As these two freethinkers illustrate, that they suffer from insecurity, inferiority complex and are desperate to be accepted by their new communities, thus they have turned their backs on their roots, foul mouthed their ancestry, rubbish their native values and vilify Islam. If Islam is so bad and evil why talk about it day and night? The answer is of course in the question. Surely in this scientific age, for a confident ‘freethinker’ evil-Islam will become irrelevant, people will simply discard it. The clearest signal of their lack of confidence and genuine fear of the consistent, uplifting and inspiring religion of Islam is their annoyance and petulant assaults.

Islam promises accountability after death and resurrection. Death is a certainty which no one can deny, as for resurrection they do not subscribe to, so, why are the freethinkers so impatient to test their conviction, as surely they will inevitably get an opportunity to see the truth for themselves. Mark my words well; there is no turning back once you arrive there to test those bitter and scornful words!

The most hateful anyone can be is to hope that these ‘freethinkers’ never reflect on the weakness of their proposition, and stick staunchly to their path; the most charitable is to pray for their guidance and illumination, that Allah (SWT) has sent them Messengers and they would be the ‘best of thinkers’ to reflect upon the message and prostrate themselves before their creator, an excellent cure for their arrogance.






[1] It refers to the factious planet in the science fiction spoof film, “Morons from Outer Space”. I have only borrowed the name but not any of its content.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Copyright © 2005 by Yamin Zakaria. Published by permission of the author.