Kafi questions the motives and the sincerity of this
"Kafi, HM Tarique I." <[email protected]>
Dec. 25, 2002
Please allow me to thank you for the rich language you use in your web
site; being a non-native speaker of English, I found your phrases and
words very rewarding. However, I could not help suspect your motive. Don't misunderstand me, I humbly
implore you. I am not a free thinker, since we all are products of our
conditioning, education and time. But I trust my ability to detect
integrity. In spite of my ignorance and lack of knowledge in any of the
Abraham's religions, I sensed something unhealthy in your web site. I dare
to express my feelings.
At first I was elated to think that "what a courageous effort this
web site is!" Then, as I proceeded I saw a pattern, a plan,-- a sign
of group-efforts in your affair of vilification of Islam. Maybe you are
100% right about Islam's Prophet and atrocities committed by Islam's
soldiers. But your goal is to "brianwash" a mass not to help
them seek truth. I noticed several efforts on this site to exploit average
human psyche, through very slective approach of words and subjects:
(1) Selection of an "Ex-Muslim" image
(2) Selecting "Middle-Eastern" back ground --the above two
help to win immediate credibility from less intellectually inclined
(3) The essays and articles are too excuisite and rich (100% error free
presentations) to be argued.
(4) Presentation of the facts in a way so that Islam's image will
certainly appear inferior.
(5) Occasional mentioning of "humanity," "love,"
"justice," etc. to give the articles and the web site a neutral
aura, which distracts readers from the very fact that the data
presented are selected only to prove Islam's negative sides.
(6) The author (or should I say Authors?) seems not to mention (maybe
smaller in comparison with Islam) anything about Christian Inquisition,
Crusaders' rampage, live burning conducted under Vatican's authority, etc.
And actually he does, only in reference to argue with those who mention
it. So that it appears that the articles consider all sides equally.
But the selection of location and style to do so make the whole
(7) We have to understand who come to this web site most. Most often
readers here are eager to find points again Islam (which they find plenty
here), but are less analytical and are intellectually less capable to
notice the fact that the web site is created to INFLUENCE a mass, instead
of disseminating enlightenment. Enlightenment comes through
all-encompassment, not by selective exclusion and inclusion of historical
data. One kind of fact always contrast another kind. Dark contrasts light.
Vilifying one obviously glorify the other--especially when the audience
are less sophisticated and ready to be influenced. Although the author
mentions other religion (yet ALMOST never), he shows dark sides of Islam
So, Mr. Sina, it seems that your grand motive is not for humanity as a
whole; it's very obvious that you are fulfilling some interests.
Deliberately or not, I am uncertain. Yes, the whole effort is very
intelligently done. Very few tactics will work as great as this. And the
best strategy to create a tunnel vision in a society is keep society's
members ignorant of this very underlying purpose of creating tunnel
vision. The best way to spread public "Propaganda,"(please
forgive me, but your too narrowly focused attitude seems to be a
propaganda effort, however right your data maybe) is to give it a
"non-Propaganda" image through logic, aura of neutrality and
From that standpoint, you seem to have succeeded. It makes me feel
disappointed. Because, at first I thought about this endevor as an
expression of human courage and intellectual honesty. But then, the barely
detectable plan, to exploit human psyche, by creating an image of
reliability and theosophical neutrality, bothered me so much! I do not
know what kind of impact it will have on the civilization, but any
negative attemp always result in a negative outcome. Yours seems to be a
negative approach. May Almighty/God/Allah (whoever He is) help us.
Thank you for your email and for expressing your
concerns about my motives so politely and candidly. Believe me, it is not
every day that I receive such educated and sincere letter from someone who
disagrees with me. It seems that one of the conditions of faith is to be
rude to those who do not believe. So it is actually me who should thank
you for excelling above the crowd.
You say that you noticed a plan,-- a sign of
group-efforts in our affair of vilification of Islam. Which led
you to believe that my goal "is to 'brainwash' a mass not to help
them seek truth".
Well, allow me to congratulate you on your first
discovery. Yes it is true that I intend to expose Islam and unmask its
ugly face both to the Muslims and non-Muslims. And it is also true that in
my struggle I found hundreds of ex-Muslims and others with similar goals
and instead of working as individuals we are coming together and are
becoming a movement. I donít think I have kept this a secret. So I
donít think you have to guess my motives or agenda because I have made
it very clear. But you say; what we are doing is brainwashing and giving a
tunnel vision of Islam.
I hope you realize that brainwashing requires
coercion. In what ways a website on the Internet can coerce people? There
are thousands of sites filled with Islamic propaganda. People can read
them and compare what we say with what they read in those sites. Is this
how brainwashing works? Of course not! Brainwashing is when you do not
allow the person to get any other fact to compare, you hammer the same
ideas over and over into his head and not only do not allow him to get any
alternative information but would censor and prohibit the information
opposing to yours. This is how brainwashing works.
Now let us see how Islam is being taught to
Muslim kids. Islam is taught from the early childhood as the only true
religion and Quran is drilled without understanding its meaning. No
Islamic country would allow any book, film, documentary or leaflet
opposing Islamic views. Anyone who dares to criticize Islam will risk
losing his or her life. Dr. Younis Sheikh, a Pakistani teacher once said
to his students that Muhammadís parents did not observe Islamic rules of
hygiene because Islam was not yet born and the rules were not in place.
This seems to be stating the obvious but he was accused of blasphemy,
jailed, condemned to death and eventually another prisoner was provided
with a gun to shoot him in his prison cell. In such atmosphere of fear,
how can you teach the truth? This is brainwashing Sir! This is tunnel
vision. Islam uses brainwashing to indoctrinate its followers. Muslims are
not allowed to think on their own and doubt the Quran, Muhammad or his
Allah. Death will await the person who dares to question Islam. No person
born to Muslim parents is allowed to change his religion. He will be
killed as an apostate.
So as you see dear Kafi, I am not brainwashing
people. I give them the information and encourage them to read the Quran
and hadith and go through all Islamic sites so they can be sure what I say
is true. Do you know any Islamic country, school of thought or site that
gives to Muslims this freedom?
I appreciate your honesty and integrity for not
claiming to be a freethinker but the product of your environment and
upbringing. I do empathize and understand you perfectly because that is
where I come from too. There was a time that as a believer I did not think
it is right for Muslims to read any anti Islam material. I even was very
crossed with those who enquired about Salman Rushdiís book. I was not
agreeing with Khomeiniís fatwa against him but I thought his book should
be banned. This way of thinking, for me, was automatic. In my view Islam
was the religion of God and no one must be allowed to critique or god
forbid criticize the word of God. I was honestly incapable to understand
that if Islam is really true, it does not need censorship and that it must
be able to defend itself against all attacks. I thought it is my duty to
hide all the ugly things and present Islam in its best light. So I tried
to become an apologetic and brush off all the criticisms hurled at Islam.
Actually I thought it is not appropriate to listen to criticisms of Islam
so I avoided them altogether. Mind you I became an anti Islam activist not
by reading any anti-Islam book but by reading the Quran in its original
language and understanding it fully as it was revealed and not through the
apologetic interpretation of its translators.
You also criticized my approach for being
ďselectiveĒ and accused me of being manipulative. Let me answer you
point by point.
(1) Selection of an "Ex-Muslim" image
I was born to Muslim parents and was a believer
up until a few years ago. What image do you think I should have chosen?
Many of the members of Faith Freedom International who contribute to this
site also have a similar background. If not ex-Muslims and Muslim
dissidents, what do you suggest we should call ourselves?
(2) Selecting "Middle-Eastern" back ground --the
above two help to win immediate credibility from less intellectually
I am an Iranian, my ancestors were Iranians; most
of the ex-Muslims in our group come from Arab, Pak, Turk, Indian or
Indonesian Islamic background. What nationality you suggest we should
pretend to be? Apart from my nationality, I am a seyyed or a direct
descendent of Muhammad through Ali and Muhammadís daughter Fatimah. I am
not proud of it at all. In fact after 60 generations or so there is
virtually zero genes of that mentally sick man left on me. But do
you think I should lie about it and deny that I am a seyyed?
(3) The essays and articles are too excuisite and rich
(100% error free presentations) to be argued.
Well thank you for the compliment but actually
they are not error free, I often go over them and keep correcting them and
improving them. But are you suggesting I should write erroneous
articles to prove my honesty?
(4) Presentation of the facts in a way so that Islam's
image will certainly appear inferior.
I am presenting the facts. If those facts make
the image of Islam to appear inferior you donít have to shoot the
messenger. I quote the Quran and the Hadith; if by doing so Islam is
trashed then perhaps the problem is with Islam. Why donít you try
to trash my site by presenting only those parts that are bad? Can you do
that? If Quran was the message of God and if Muhammad was his messenger, I
would not have been able to find not even one thing wrong in it.
(5) Occasional mentioning of "humanity,"
"love," "justice," etc. to give the articles and the
web site a neutral aura, which distracts readers from the very fact that
the data presented are selected only to prove Islam's negative sides.
The very reason I attack Islam is because it is a
cult that preaches discrimination, hate and practices injustice. It is for
humanity, love and justice that I write. Would you have preferred if I
advocated hate and violence? Why these concepts are not the emphasis of
the Quran? Why Islam does not preach humanity, love and justice? Why the
message of Islam is only believing, killing, punishment, hell and fear?
What is the spiritual message of Islam for humanity? The emphasis is to
believe, believe by sword and coercion, believe by fear of after life,
believe for lust of celestial houris and after life debauchery. Then what?
What is the spiritual message of Islam? Nothing! There is no message. The
message is to believe in Muhammad and his imaginary Allah and nothing
else. If Muhammad was a messenger of God, what is his message? Does he
tell you how to overcome hate? Does he teach you how to fill this world
with love, how to establish unity, how to be enlightened, how to solve
scientific problems, how to cure diseases? No! There is no other message
than ďbelieveĒ. All this man cared for is to control others and
what better way that claiming to be the messenger of God? He did not talk
about spiritual qualities such as humanity, love and justice. Do you think I am doing something wrong taking
about these spiritual values?
(6) The author (or should I say Authors?) seems not to
mention (maybe smaller in comparison with Islam) anything about Christian
Inquisition, Crusaders' rampage, live burning conducted under Vatican's
authority, etc. And actually he does, only in reference to argue with
those who mention it. So that it appears that the articles consider
all sides equally. But the selection of location and style to do so make
the whole difference.
All those things about Christianity and other
religions are history. Today the Christians do not practice inquisitions,
crusades or burn witches. Vaticanís temporal powers are stripped away,
and Christians are not using terrorism as a tool to expand their religion.
Furthermore there are many other books and sites that have exposed all the
flaws of Christianity and other religions. What is more is that most
Christians know it too. This site is about Islam and not other religions.
We do not have enough material criticizing Islam because enlightened
Muslims feared their lives to do that and those who did, paid dearly for
it. This is the first time that ex-Muslims find the liberty to criticize
Islam and there is much to criticize. You want me to say that other
religions are also bad so the site could look more balanced. First of all
I do not care whether a religion is false or true. As a matter of fact I
believe all of them are false. What concerns me is which religion preaches
hate. Today, no church, no synagogue, no pagoda or temple teaches hate
like it is taught in the mosques. None of the religions is
endangering the lives of the people like Islam does. If Christians, Hindus
or Buddhists become terrorists, (which in comparison to Islam is
negligible) they do that despite the teachings of their religions. But
Muslims become terrorists by simply reading the Quran and practicing it.
In fact Islam is such that mostly criminally inclined people are attracted
to it, hence its popularity among the prison inmates in USA. These
criminals do not come out of prisons reformed after converting to Islam,
but rather they channel their hatred of the society in a much more
organized and motivated way. They become far more dangerous after they
convert to Islam than when they went to jail.
(7) We have to understand who come to this web site most.
Most often readers here are eager to find points again Islam (which
they find plenty here), but are less analytical and are intellectually
less capable to notice the fact that the web site is created to INFLUENCE
a mass, instead of disseminating enlightenment. Enlightenment comes
through all-encompassment, not by selective exclusion and inclusion of
historical data. One kind of fact always contrast another kind. Dark
contrasts light. Vilifying one obviously glorify the other--especially
when the audience are less sophisticated and ready to be influenced.
Although the author mentions other religion (yet ALMOST never), he shows
dark sides of Islam only.
This is unkind of you to say. People who surf the
net are not as low brained as those going to the mosques listening to the
sermons of the Mullahs. These people go through all the sites and make
their own mind after analyzing the facts. If what we present here
weigh more than the thousands of Islamic sites, they will agree with us.
That is how knowledge is sought. This is not brainwashing and tunnel
vision as in Islamic countries; this is enlightenment.
It is not up to me to present Islamic views. I
have to present my own views. How can I write articles contrary to my own
views? Should I publish articles written by Muslim apologists? Islamic
articles are already available on the net. It is not difficult to find
them. If I publish Islamic articles I will be accused for choosing the
weak ones. Let people read what they want to read. People can make their
own mind after reading my views and the views expressed by Muslims in
thousands of Islamic sites. Do any of these Islamic sites carry our
articles? Does anyone of them carry a link to us? When they attack us,
they are afraid to mention our name; least people discover us and read the
other side of the story. No Islamic forum on the Internet would allow a
member post a link to faithfreedom.org. They immediately delete that link
and if the member persists, they will ban him. Why donít you go and tell
these sites to be fair and let their critiques also express their views so
people can see the other side of Islam too? Would you do that? Of
course not! You actually do not believe in presenting both sides. You just
donít want the negative side of Islam be presented. Period.
But we have a forum. Anyone can write whatever he
wants and we never censor thoughts. Muslims are invited to join us in our
forum and tell their side of the story. If we lie, they can tell the truth
and truth always wins. Does any Islamic site allow that? I do not have to
publish pro Islam articles. Islamic propaganda is readily available on the
net. What is not so readily available are articles exposing the fallacies
of Islam! Faithfreedom.org is filling that gap. There are other anti Islam
sites too, but unfortunately they are either pro-other religions or hate
sites against the Muslims. Our site does not promote any religion or
ideology and is free of racially motivated hate talk.
Why donít you join our forum? You imply that we
are not presenting the other side of the sotry. Well that is your job. Who better than
a Muslim to speak for Islam? Would I be a credible advocate for Islam? But
you can defend Islam. Come to our forum and tell us why you think we are
wrong. I promised that should anyone prove our claims against Muhammad and
Islam wrong; I will remove this site not before acknowledging publicly
that I was wrong and Islam is true. Now would you accept this challenge?
What else I can do? You see? It is not me who lacks sincerity. If
you think we do not present all the facts, show the facts that we are
hiding. Let the world know the truth. But if you avoid coming forth,
isnít it fair to assume that you have no facts? Isnít it fair to
assume that Muslims have lost in this debate and the only reason they
expanded was through violence, deceit, wars and coercions? Isnít it fair
to say that Muslims perpetuate their religion through tunnel vision and
debate continues in the forum