¡Ibn 'Abdullah comó mis huevos!

No, in unambiguous terms, it is merely “the Prophet Ate My Balls,” a wonderful new addition to the ball eating craze that has struck the internet, with such wonderful titles as “Mr. T Ate My Balls,” “Jesus Christ Ate My Balls,” “Kate Winslet Ate My Balls,” and best of all “The Teletubbies Ate My Balls.” Get it? It never really happened, the Prophet Muhammad, never REALLY tried to eat my balls, mis heuvos.   Fiction.   Humor.  Well faint attempts at sophomoric humor.

Unfortunately, what is almost as bad as eating my testicles, was that the Prophet, or at least his followers, decided that he had said it was A-O.K. to kill anybody who would leave the fold of Islam, and not “repent,” i.e. pretend to believe in Islam. Perhaps it might be understandable that I do not give the Prophet much esteem for his commandment to kill apostates, and that I do not think that it is healthy to encourage a necrophilia towards the long dead, such that if I were to hypothetically say,“The Prophet Muhammad was a goober, spaz, dweeb, loser, nerd,” a “fifth” of the world forms a column to crush me.

“In the Prophetic Tradition, apostasy is punishable by death, a view which is upheld and detailed in both the Sunnite and Shi'ite law books. However, the offender is usually granted an opportunity to recant. Only adult, sane, male apostates who have acted freely are to be executed (traditionally by the sword). Women are either imprisoned until they recant (Hannafites and Shi'ites) or are executed (Malikites, Shafi'ites, and Hanbalites).”

So there you have it folks, but please don’t misunderstand Islam (since it is the perfect religion- your views don’t come from any shock at finding out what it really teaches, but rather remnants of Crusader propaganda) and become an Islamophobe. You have to understand the ethos of Islam, the essential Tawheedian weltanschauung that makes apostasy and blasphemy tantamount to treason. Once this weltanschauung is recognized as being just as valid, if not more so (the divine right of Caliphs...) than “the Secular Western view,” it becomes quite obvious that to protest capital punishment for apostates and blasphemers would be the absolute height of cultural insensitivity and bigotry.

Shame on you! Shame on you, in your Western palaces of debauchery and extravagance, and yet YOU have the gumption to launch vitriolic attacks on the “financially-challenged” portions of the world community, who cling to their ever beautiful and valuable “faith traditions!” You...you...you REPUBLICAN!

Ouch. I’m sorry, I must have been licking “stamps” again, because I almost thought I heard that not only is it a part and parcel of the Muslim faith, but intrinsic very nearly from the beginning, with the Holy of Holies- Mahound, er...Muhammad giving the command. Ah, how beautiful is the rainbow, with its coalitions of coloration, so many variations, yet all combining to make harmony...Look at all the colors man!

Yes look at all the colors man, because one of them may be the incarnadine of blood shed in the name of Gawd, which you apparently don’t want to see, even when very little effort has been spent to cover up the actual basis in Prophetic Tradition. Oh certainly you have your apologists who can point out double-standards, and plead for understanding of bruised “feelings”- you don’t have to watch the execution.

Exeunt from inner-dialogue. Enter American Muslim on the smorgasbord of wisdom alt.religion.islam, joe-smoe ‘Merican convert (although he may prefer “revert,” as the first thing out of his mother’s womb he said shahadah- honest Islam.), he knows a “thing or two ‘bout what’s goin’ down.”

"I know why Atheists defend Salmon [sic] Rushdie's right to slander and offend the believers: he also is an Atheist and belongs to the same club as other Atheists! This is how the death of a million children [in Iraq] can be seen as trivial non-sense, thousands of assassinations and interventions around the globe can be accepted, but no one better touch Salmon?!!!"

This is with apologies to ‘Merican Muslim, since there is the possibility that he could not understand that whatever injustice perpetrated or assisted by the West in no way mitigates or changes unjust laws that have been in existence for seven times as long as the United States of America (or Canada :-). This is also with apologies for his inability to comprehend that yours truly doesn’t believe in a god at the moment, and yet at the same time finds the morality of sanctions troubling to say the least, such that I’ve protested against it.

He states the obvious, Sal Rushdie is one among great multitudes, but is unable to grasp the corollaries to the silencing of Rushdie, which encompasses the rights of every single Muslim man, woman, and child. In principle, if the language of violence is utilized as a condoned method of dealing with dissidents, then ultimately Muslims lose the ability to believe sincerely what they do in fact believe (except of course, to physically harm others). Coercion is no means to finding truth, otherwise Pol Pot's re-education centers were the highest institutions of learning ever to have existed.

"Otherwise, all Atheists who, out of hypocrisy and blind hatred, have been pretending that they are "more equal" and should be held to a different standard than everyone else, can read the work of their brother, Salmon Rushdie, and substitute the name of their parents everywhere he tried to offend Muslims!!! Since you defend him so much, see how you like them apples!"

Whether Salman Rushdie had plaintively suggested that perhaps Islam would best be left out of aspects of life such as civil and state law, while representing himself as an apostate, Islam would still in its ideal state want him killed or made thereby to retract his beliefs, "derrogatory slander" or not. And to bluntly assert that Rushdie slandered the Prophet Muhammad, and should be made to suffer consequences, would require that the Prophet be a living, human being, who would be caused damages by libel. But in no case, even if he was alive would it be considered meet to kill the person making the "slander."

When historical figures have such a great amount of mythology surrounding their lives, it is also difficult to determine the validity of any criticism, or any praise. Sure. The Prophet Muhammad's birth, like Jesus' and Buddha's was greeted by a number of ominous portents of his future glory. The fire in the Magian temples went out. The incident of the Elephant transpired, where the Abyssinian army was routed. Sure. Muhammad flew on a magic horse to the "seven heavens" and Jerusalem- Saudi Airlines should give him his due frequent flier miles.

Cultists have their gurus, messiahs, prophets, seers, and prognosticators- such that millions upon millions believe in the unquestionable holiness of this particular human being or that particular mythological figure. This is evidence of communal reinforcement of belief, not necessarily of the figurehead's true character.

Did Muhammad have pointy horns? Was he the Antichrist? To praise such a blasphemer as Muhammad, the denier of Christ's divinity, would certainly be a "great slander" against the "true nature" of Christ. Some Christians, who have their own apotheosized figurehead to defend against such wicked slanders as The Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ sure do have a lot of hurt feelings at times as well (usually because of heliocentric blasphemy). But why are Muslims and Christians rationally justified to stomp out any disagreeable discussion of their respective "founders" when what they are primarily defending is a set of dogmas about those founders, that in many cases was formulated posthumously?

"Mary was a virgin!" "How do you know?" "The Church sez so!" "Well, can you prove it?" "Of course, look at the first chapter of Matthew...." [For the best retort to this, I would recommend renting The Life of Brian, but forewarned that Gawd will strike you dead if you laugh, he has a mighty temper, and as is the case with Islam, no sense of humor. Probably because Catholic clergymen never get laid...okay that was under the Roman collar...]

<>

Well, getting past the fact that only a small minority of that billion had actually read the entire book, less even understanding more than a smattering of it- most likely to quote it to their less literary-inclined brothers in the worst possible context or lack thereof- what the Muslims were reacting to was not just a single author, if at all. While Rushdie's book served as a focal point for the division between the secular and Islamic world, it is questionable how much of the "intercultural debate" was about the book itself, which by the difficulty of the style I have a hard time imagining was read by very many of any creed.

It would also be interesting to find any basis for "freedom of speech" in Islam that would be even remotely recognizable. Of course, 'Merican Muslim did not present any evidence for "freedom of speech," probably because there are too many dissimilarities between our definitions of the phrase.

Islam IMHO, does not fit the bill because 1) it gives religious minorities no rights to proselytize 2) non-People of the Book- non-Ahl-il-Kitaab- theoretically only have the choice between Islam and death 3) Dhimmis, non-Muslim subjects are given a special tax for their non-Islamic beliefs, a seeming penalty 4) There is a restriction on speech between non-relative men and women 5) On the basis of the Prophet's sayings with regards to nudity, great works of art whether contemporary or from the Renaissance would have to be censored- witness Iran. 6) All parodies and satires of Islam would be produced at one's own great risk- anything disagreeable put under the category of "slander and offense." 7) etc., etc.

But for a countering view, we get the ubiquitous Institute of Islamic Information and Education (III&E) Brochures- out to tell the heathen folk that war is peace, slavery is freedom- in which we learn, "But since in Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. " In other words, those practices outlined above, insomuch as they find their origins in the Qur'an and Sunnah, have Gawd's seal of approval. Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to all citizens of the Islamic state on the condition that it should be used for the propagation of virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and wickedness. The Islamic concept of freedom of expression is much superior to the concept prevalent in the West.

I daresay that these are empty words, doublethink fodder, as merely to question openly the existence of Gawd would be punishable- treason to the ruler of society- the invisible leperchauns and "their lucky charms." The "caste system" of Islam- the Muslims, the second-class People of the Book, and the executed apostates, blasphemers, atheists, polytheists, homosexuals- confers tyranical powers on one strata of society over the other. And this is all without even going into a discussion of the right to "free speech" for women...

----------------------------------------------------------

I will certainly feel bad about caricaturing the Prophet when Muslims use the Scientific Miracle of the Holy Qur'an to make a time machine. Then they can go back and inform their Prophet about human rights and freedom of speech, which he seems unsurprisingly to be ignorant of in the seventh century. Till such a time, I can only say one thing- "MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABDULLAH ATE MY BALLS!"

-----------------

postscript:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has quite a bit to say about what it calls "Islamophobia," and the negative press Islam in its view constantly receives in the American Media. My tentative view is that while CAIR may be taken seriously to some extent as a force to stop discrimination against Muslims, it cannot be taken seriously to introspect and see what some other thinking-people might find objectionable about Islam. (They sound far from dummies, and it is my guess that they have more than their fair share of well-educated intellectuals in their ranks. )

I don't usually run around with a baseball bat and hit every Muslim I see. Nor do I go and vandalize mosques and call for the violent elimination of Muslims. Yet, it is my guess that CAIR would find my rhetoric "hateful" and "Islamophobic." I can't be responsible for some Neanderthal red-necks who can barely read, justifying their hatred based on writings and portrayals critical of Islam. Whether they are "true patriots" or consider themselves followers of the true meaning of the Bible, most likely they get their main impetus from their own warped dogmas, and then rely on others to do the thinking they find so difficult without taking a balanced look at the issues for themselves.

I can only laugh, however, if someone would be offended if I take offense that their religion calls for apostates' death. And thinking about Muslim history in general, and the doctrines in place for the discrimination against dhimmis- non-Muslims forced to pay a special tax and have their religious freedoms curtailed- it is plain dishonest to whine about every single writer who may not agree that Islam is true.

And in regards to CAIR's hijacking (oh how insensitive of me, I feel like such a bigot) of the terminology of the gay rights movement, it is humorous to say the least. Islam takes homophobia to new levels- the death penalty (some interpretations would be flogging) is in the Shari'ah Law books, as it is in the Bible. An interesting site in this regard is the Queer Masjid which highlights the love that Islam puts in the hearts of some Muslims for their fellow human beings.

*Note about the Caricature of the Prophet:

In plain English, the Prophet is saying in the cartoon: "Allahu Akbar. God is the Greatest. They [the balls] are delicious. The cactus is saying "As-Salaamu Alaykum O Prophet" parodying the claims that rocks and trees greeted the Prophet wherever he went. The heart tattoo has the word umm "Mom" inscribed, refering to the story of the "seal of prophecy" supposedly found by a monk named Bahira while Muhammad as a youth was on caravan.

*-RE: Islamic Ruling on Apostates- oh yes, there is a massive amount of dissent within Islamic circles about apostasy. :-> So much so that I found two links (one active, other kaput) for anyone interested to examine the dissenting Muslim view. But it would also be of interest what they thought about "slanderers" of the Prophet...

•  http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/views/poa.htm the penalties have been misunderstood...only the prophet and his Rashideen homeys get to kill apostates..