The Surah-Like-It challenge

Surah Like it

There’s a claim which comes up again and again and no matter how often it is refuted, beaten down or ridiculed, seems to periodically resurface. It must be incredibly tempting for Muslims to have some sort of justification for their belief the Koran is miraculous in some way and thus, perfectly written by a perfect god. Well, if that is the case, keep looking elsewhere.

Muslim apologists usually have only a few thoughts why the faith they have in their ideology is justified.

They believe the Koran has divine origins because it is

Scientifically compliant

Inerrant

Unchallenged

The universe and all life is hand-crafted by their personal creator/god

Some nonsensical points such as fine-tuning, morality, purpose, existence, etc

All these claims have been refuted over and over. The Koran is NOT scientifically correct because eg the creation of mountains and of humans is completely out of whack, which has been aptly demonstrated. There are lots of mistakes, which I have demonstrated. The classic god-of-the-gaps arguments when it comes to the origins of the Universe and life are simply wishful thinking and all attempts by apologists at bringing up any type of rational argument have been killed. The other points I mentioned have been shown to be irrelevant or plain wrong, so in this video I will , for the 2^nd time, investigate the claim of the miraculous nature of the Koran by looking at what apologists claim is the built-in verification checksum. They love to sound all “sciency”, without understanding any of it.

Anyway, the claim is that the Koran, the chapters and the sentences in it are so incredibly well written and so eloquent and complex that humans could never even come close to replicating it, hence the “sura-like-it” claim.

As Charles Colton once said: “Imitation is the highest form of flattery.” Not for the Koran it seems.

Just to clarify something to avoid any possible misunderstanding - if this is even possible: even if the Koran were spotless, structured, eloquent, inerrant, superbly told with amazing word choice, a vast vocabulary and an incredible amount of rhetorical devices, it would only mean one, single thing: it is well written. Just because a book, a painting, a song or any piece of art for that matter is a cut above the rest, this only demonstrates the immense creativity of humans. It does not in any way indicate divine origins. We don’t have any divine texts to compare it to. The texts we do have, some of which are far superior, are written by humans. If a text were divinely written, it would mean with absolute certainty that challenges and taunts would be unnecessary as everyone would be completely in awe of this text. As it turns out, hardly anyone is, when it comes to the Koran.

Humans appreciate beauty and harmony. But tastes differ. I don’t like coke or McDonalds. Many others do. I like pizza. Others don’t. We all look different and our values and views differ as well. So let me raise a couple of points before delving into the details of this challenge, a challenge which I consider to be outright funny.

1.      Every human and every product by a human is unique. What I am writing in this essay has never – in the entire history of the Universe – been written before. It is totally unique, yet I make no claim for divinity.

2.      Beauty and eloquence are subjective, bar any objective method of measurement or unit.

3.      99.999% of the population on this planet are unable to read or write ancient Arabic.

4.      There are 5 different versions of the challenge in the Koran, 17:88, 2:23, 10:37, 11:13, 52:33, each contradicting the others, all lacking a specification on what the challenge actually is. 11:13 goes so far as to call the 10 sentences we are to produce forged, fabricated or invented right off the bat.

5.      Bring something like it, does not say what the “like” in “like it” should be.

6.      There is no specification what the “it” is and what the “it” is supposed to be.

7.      The challenge is not clear on what is to be produced.

8.      There is no requirement regarding language, format or contents.

9.      There is no specification regarding the wildly fluctuating styles used in different chapters.

10.   The entire challenge is flawed logically, as the challenge to produce a Koran when only 18% have been “revealed” would be impossible. Does that mean the challenge to produce a Koran was the last sentence to be “revealed”? I’ll demonstrate this in a few minutes.

11.   Muslims, unfortunately, are forced to believe all the 5 claims made in the 5 sentences blindly and they have to believe this is impossible, because the Koran states in 2:24 that “you will never be able to”and not believing it would be doubting the contents of the Koran, which is not permissable in Islam. The Koran is inerrant because the Koran says so.

12.   2:23 states: “call your witnesses”. Who are the witnesses? Can anyone be a witness?

13.   Why should anyone actually try - when it says any attempt will be futile?

14.   How can anyone succeed if the attempt itself is punishable by hell?

15.   On what grounds and by whom have existing submissions been rejected?

16.   There is no specification whether the abundant mistakes need to be included.

17.   Is it sufficient to repair faulty sentences to produce something better than the original Koran?

18.   Would a similar chapter need to contain contradictions, misogynistic, nonsensical, awkward and violent parts as well?

This is the challenge I am talking about. Here are the 5 sentences with their varying and vague challenges on what is to be produced and some context:

17:88:             Koran

2:23:               a single chapter (surah)

10:37-38:       a single chapter (surah)

11:13:             10 chapters (surahs)

52:33-34:       anything (produce a statement like it)

17:88 If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof

2:23 what we have revealed from time to time to our servant, then produce a like thereunto

10:37-38 Bring then a like unto it

11:13 Bring ye then ten suras forged, like unto it

52:33-34 Let them then produce a recital like unto it

So what does reality in the here and now have to say to this?

Apologists often claim that the challenge can only be fulfilled if delivered in ancient Arabic, or Koranic Arabic. In 17:88 however, it clearly says: “the whole of mankind and Jinns”, not only Arabs or Arab-speaking humans. This challenge is for anybody and everybody in any language. Also, it is a challenge to all non-believers whether Jinn or humans and not just to Arab-speaking people. What I find odd is that an all-knowing god would wait for the 3^rd edition of his book before attempting to write it properly. And failing again.

Apologists realise the childish nature of this challenge and have added some of their own criteria, not mentioned in the Koran itself. They claim that the actual miracle of the Koran is that it converted millions and 100s of millions to Islam, whereas a copy will not be able to do this and declare the copy a failure. By default. It shows the dishonest attitude of some Muslims, who will not stop at anything to score some brownie points.

An Egyptian Arab recently came up with some nasheeds and Muslims agreed there was not a single mistake in them – until he revealed they were anti-Koran sentences, just made to sound like a Koran recitation.

There are 100s of examples of people who have accepted the challenge and have placed them on websites such as these.

www.aperfectquran.org.uk (does not exist any longer)

www.thebetterquran.com (does not exist any longer)

www.suralikeit.com

Some are in exquisite poetic style, using 7th century Koranic Arabic. Muslims regularly protest these sites and try to shut them down in an attempt to silence them. You can’t have what is not allowed, so Muslims constantly on the lookout for reasons to be offended, show they prefer censorship to intellectually honest discussions.

A. F. L. Beeston, in his book “Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period”, provides a huge amount of Arabic speaking Arabs who accepted the challenge, some over 1000 years ago.

Here are some examples:

Ibn al-Mukaffa

Zaydi Imam

al-Qasim b. Ibrahim

Abu'l-'Ala' al-Ma'arri

Yahya b. al-Hakam al-Ghazal (the sage of al-Andalus)

Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad

Abu'l-'Atahiya

Hamzah ben-Ahed

Nadir ibn Haritha

Bassar bin Burd

They came up with examples such as "In the name of Compassionate and Merciful light” the Manichaean variation of the bismilah.

Then we have the “sura like it” contained and fulfilled in the Koran itself. Chapter 53 contains sentences which were not conceived by the Islamic god - but Islamic satan. So satan was capable of producing something like the Koran, so realistic and similar in fact that it fooled the 7^th century Arabs around Muhammad, the first hand experts.

Historically, on the Arabian peninsula, just over 1000 years ago, the Syriac and Nabataean used in the North, the Sabaic in the South and the multitude of Bedouin dialects in the desert in between were vastly different. That is when the Koran provided a common language for the entire Arabian peninsula. As such, it was indeed unique.

Muslims misunderstand comments by Orientalists who describe the Koran as a unique book and unsurpassed for centuries. How should any book, any chapter or any sentence appear in this language? Ancient or classic Arabic is no longer used and no books have appeared in this dead language for hundreds of years.

Can they, the Muslim apologists, answer questions like:

How, in what way exactly, is the Tamil Ramavataram inferior to the Koran? Can they demonstrate this?

The Sikh “Adi Granth” or “Guru Granth Sahib” is considered to be the best humans can offer.

Dante codified Italian. A man, not a god.

Cy Twombly, whose paintings, sculptures, drawings and photographs are like the man: inimitable and irreplaceable.

Aerosyn-Lex is one of those unique artists whose inimitable calligraphic work and timeless visual style transcends a diverse range of galleries and artistic platforms.

Quentin Blake's work is called "incomparable", "inimitable", "unmistakable", "unbeatable".

Velazquez, an inimitable genius of painting.

The inimitable Michael Jackson

Art = idea + technique + person

All I see is that we have a mediocre book at best, which offers very little in eloquence and harmony, which is why Muslim apologists try and drag their product into an area of emotional attachment, far away from facts, logics and objective assessment.

I said earlier, I would come back to the fact that the challenge is illogical, so because this is frequently misunderstood, let me elucidate this using a let’s-pretend-drawing.

If I take a timeline and add Muhammad’s lifetime on there, this is the approximate timespan of 23 years of when the Koran was allegedly and magically “revealed”.

If I now take a point anywhere during the “revelation” it is clear that the majority of the text has not been “revealed” yet - and thus, nobody could possibly “bring something like the Koran” because the Koran was not complete yet and thus did not exist as such. So nobody could provide a copy of what did not yet exist, demonstrating the childish and primitive nature of this challenge.

It’s like me saying: you can’t lick your elbow and if you can’t lick your elbow a god exists. Should you now try licking your elbow you will be tortured as punishment, for trying. And now let me finish building your elbow. That’s how crazy it is.

In summary, the challenge

1.       Makes ambiguous, varying and contradictory demands

2.       Leaves open what must be delivered in what way and with what consequence

3.       Is illogical (you can’t provide a Koran if it is not revealed yet)

4.       States that it is impossible by definition, no matter what

5.       Threatens the applicant with eternal torture

6.       Ignores that satan made it

The “surah like it” challenge is childish, dishonest, illogical, downright silly and irrelevant. It is a demonstration of the simple disposition of Muslim apologists and their craving for some form of acceptance and looks more like a plea or an emotional appeal than a factual claim or rational argument.

And remember, even if it did make sense, it would not provide any kind of evidence for

a.)    a miracle or

b.)    the existence of a god

But just to prove my point how ridiculously easy it actually is to meet the challenge, I will take what is said in

52:34 Then let them produce a statement like it, if they should be truthful.

To show that I am better than the authors of the Koran, I will define what I mean and what I am doing. I will take

12:1 Alif. Lam. Ra. These are verses of the Scripture that maketh plain.

and then by using a selection of sentences from different chapters as guideline and then based on these, create chapter 115 of the Koran.

A L R                - 10, 11, 12, 14, 15

A L M              - 2, 3, 29, 30, 31, 32

A L M R          - 13

A L M S           - 7

H M                 - 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46

H M A S Q     - 42

S                       - 38

T S                    - 27

T S M              - 26, 28

T H                   - 20

Q                      - 50

K H Y A S        - 19

N                      - 68

Y S                    - 36

115:1 ABC These are the sentences, which explain it to you.

115:2 WTF

115:3 STFU

115:4 OMG

115:5 LOL

115:6 NOBO and I know what you don’t know.

There, challenge matched, fulfilled, delivered and done. Just like in the Koran, but without a single mistake or any contradictions.

Unfortunately, only a god will know what they mean, just like in the Koran.

You’re welcome.

Caveat: Before you go crazy and women start throwing their hijabs at me, this does not mean I am a god. This does not mean your god just ceased to exist, in case you are that way inclined. But non-atheists will have to get used to the fact that scripture is neither special, nor holy, nor sacrosanct nor are any religious texts anything near perfect.

Again, you’re welcome.

Are 100, 1000 or 1001 Inventions under Copyright?

It feels funny to be under siege. It feels frustrating to not have anything to counter this siege. It feels unfair and makes me want to scream when I have dishonest Muslims using lies and underhand tactics to try and silence me. It is infuriating to realise that dishonest people can get away with their lies and their deceptions because they are playing the system and know how to exploit it.

There's a company in the UK called "1001 INVENTIONS". This company lies and deceives and I exposed this. I showed what the lies are and why they are lies. I showed what reality is and how their stories are fabrications and only sly tactics to generate influence and introduce Islamic propaganda into the classrooms of children. There are others who also noticed this and have equally exposed their deceptive tactics and have ridiculed their pretty stupid claims.

The company did not like that. As many Muslims do, they instantly applied censorship, blocking me from participating in any kind of civilised or rational discussion.

As I have stated before, they claim that there was a Golden Age of Islam roughly 1000 years ago, when most scientific achievements were made and the ground stone was lain for today’s technology and scientific achievements.

In my videos I have already pointed out that it was neither a Golden Age nor was anything spectacular discovered or invented by Muslims due to Islam, as not only Muslims contributed to the advancements that did happen and that these were developments of existing knowledge.
Yes, there were great people who made great contributions to mankind almost 1000 years ago.
Yes, the level of development was remarkable.
Yes, the researchers following that era based a lot of their work on the findings of the Arab scientists.
Yes, the centre of development and the height of technological advances was Baghdad.
Were 1000s of manuscripts with scientific or analytical contents translated from all sorts of countries, civilisations and languages into Arabic? Yes.

Was any ground-breaking or mind-boggling discovery made? No.
Was any stupendous application developed? No.

That happened later, when people like da Vinci, Galileo, Kepler, Leibniz or Newton started using both their brain cells.

But what happened in Baghdad or in Spain was good, solid work establishing facts and providing accurate descriptions of our natural world.

What "1001 INVENTIONS" is claiming is that Muslims were the ones  "making breakthroughs that have left their mark on our world"

http://www.1001inventions.com/future

They make it look as though Islam is the driver behind "one thousand years of scientific, technological and cultural achievements from Muslim Civilisation from the 7th century onwards, and how those contributions helped create the foundations of our modern world."



Do they specify what exactly was discovered or invented by Muslims in the 7th century? No!

They announce DVD's and what they call "Education Packs", which anyone interested can purchase from them. These things come with a hefty price tag. Anything and everything is associated with money. Is their material worth the money? No, of course not. They promise the world and then deliver primitive propaganda.

They manage only a handful of examples, vague examples, like the first university or the first to drink coffee. When researching the claims we find that the university was a Madrassa, a school where the Koran was taught and that a real University like the University of Constantinople was founded in 425 CE by Emperor Theodosius II of the Byzantine Empire, long before Islam came around and coffee developed over centuries in different regions.

They mention "detailed" maps but fail to mention that they put Spain just around the corner from China. They don't mention that Biruni did not sail around the world but simply copied what others had done before him and stated: "Supposed regions do exist beyond the [known] remaining regions of the world." Is this a "detailed" map?

1001 INVENTIONS mention "winged flight" on page 10 of their book, "1001 Inventions and Awesome Facts from Muslim Civilization", geared towards kids. They don't mention that this was about a guy who covered himself in feathers from some eagles, jumped off a tower and broke some bones and still survived. Their source? According to the professor of medieval history, Lynn Townsend White, it was a poem mocking this fool, where Mu'min ibn Said wrote: "He surpassed in velocity the flight of the ostrich, but neglected to arm his body with the strength of a vulture". But "1001 INVENTIONS" somehow see this as winged flight, make it look like something we today would recognise as resembling a hang-glider and call it a "replica". A replica of what? A replica of something that does not exist and never has existed?

They mention mechanical clocks, forgetting that they had existed for 100s of years, the same being true of the "camera obscura". This goes on and on and anything they claim is either a lie or so obscure that it's mundane, like  the fact that the ritual washing in Islamic prayer made Muslims wash their hands and walls had to be higher than a camel rider to protect their privacy.

They mention chess when anyone can find the Islamic texts in the form of hadith, condemning it (“He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.“ S Muslim 28:5612). So they tone it down, writing "we don't know if it began in India or Persia". So why write about it in the first place if you don't know?

In their book "1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization" on page 46 they mention the name of al-Razi. Anyone familiar with Islam and its scholars knows that Al-Razi hated Islam and mocked the Koran, so "1001 INVENTIONS" are lying again, automatically making every Arab sounding name a Muslim.


Sad. But many people believe their claims. Uncritically.

The UK-based company called "1001 INVENTIONS" is presenting itself as an educator, delivering knowledge, when, in reality, this is just Islamic propaganda. That is what I exposed. That is what I demonstrated and provided evidence for. That is what the truth does.

Copyright infringement notification by YouTube

Now they are stepping up their campaign to silence me by trying to get my videos addressing their claims regarding an Islamic Golden Age - which have been running since 2012 - banned and taken down by filing false copyright infringement claims. But I show not only the claims of "1001 INVENTIONS" but more general claims as well, made by Muslim apologists.

They, "1001 INVENTIONS" are making 2 claims:
1. I am using their copyrighted material
2. I am using their protected brand name

This is, of course, dishonest, ludicrous and outright stupid.

My video, "1001 Inventions or 1000 Lies?", runs for ~25 minutes, or 1500 seconds. Out of that time, roughly 20 seconds are showing a segment in the background without audio from a marketing video "1001 INVENTIONS" released. I am commenting this video orally as well as with text throughout my critique, showing how dishonest it is, without showing any more of it.

The United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes provision, in section 107, for "fair usage" of copyrighted works for reporting, educating, commenting, satire or criticism without acquiring permission from the rights holder.

So even if this video and the other material I am using to make my case WERE copyrighted, I would still legally be able to show what it is I am talking about using this material.

Material for public and media use

But is this material copyrighted? No!

The material I am using, including the video portion, is found on the 1001Inventions.com web site with other freely available marketing stuff for, what they label as: "public and media" use.
http://www.1001inventions.com/official_videos

They call this
"Authorised video/film clips for public and media use in this page"
And that is what I duly used.

What is strange is that others on Youtube are blatantly using material which is watermarked as copyrighted material not for reproduction as is demonstrated in the picture on the left - but the company doesn't seem to mind. Is it because it is someone praising them?

To me, it seems they are applying double standards here.




The second claim they make is that I am using their brand name.

What rubbish!

Excerpt from a trade register

They have a logo and a name,  "1001 INVENTIONS", which are registered trademarks and thus protected. What does that mean? It means that I am not allowed to name my company and start public trading as "1001 INVENTIONS" or trade anything using the name or logo.

Does that mean I am not allowed to mention the name or write a sentence with the number and the word it it? No! Of course not.
Does that mean I am not allowed to show their logo or their name? No! Of course not.

I am not making any commercial use of either. It's like commenting on a Mercedes car. I can comment on it and show the company products - even if it has their name and logo on it - I just can't sell products with their name and logo on it or pretend I am them or acting on their behalf.

Writing a book about them or making a video about them is not illegal and is not "using" their brand name or violating their rights in any way.

Unfortunately, the Google strategy is not geared towards a balanced and objective reporting standard, but only protecting itself from any kind of legal entanglement.

That is why people like me who are the victims of false claims still get punished first and then asked: what happened? I am presumed guilty until I can prove my innocence. Because Google can't be bothered to assign resources to these cases. I suppose it costs money to do that, so why worry about a balanced and fair treatment!?

My video demonstrating the fakery around a fighter plane in the Islamic Republic of Iran was removed when Muslims flagged it as containing "misleading commercial information".  Hilarious - but sad when you consider that the people in Google who defended the action actually agreed with the false flagging. Not caring about the truth or facts, just avoiding the constant niggling by Muslims, avoiding free speech along with it.

When it comes to the professional whining and playing the victim by these Muslims, free speech and legal considerations are of secondary priority. Welcome to reality.




Addendum:
"1001 INVENTIONS" show their true, childish, dishonest disposition by deleting the buttons where press and public could freely download  marketing material.
The links were removed and replaced by a link to a page where you can now order material. They probably think this gives them more control over their lies and deceptive materials.

Islamogist Abdullah al Andalusi

Abdullah al Andalusi. It was more by chance that I bumped into this bigot and hypocrite. He uses this artificially constructed name and considers the driving back the aggressors who had conquered the country of Spain an act of aggression and violence. He remembers the final Arab Emirate, that of Al-Andalus, in his stage-name. He probably considers the UN mandate driving back Iraq when it had invaded Kuwait an act of terrorism.

I laughed him off as just another crackpot, until I saw remarks in different places, all referring to this program. Then it was a Twitter message here, a blog there and all this got me interested. This guy, Abdullah al Andalusi, appeared on the BBC Show Big Questions and delivered a pitiful performance, one of the worst I have seen by any Muslim apologist, people I call Islamogists. 

So I went and took another look at the program and then read al Andalusi's apologetic blog entry on this and I decided to provide my 2 cents in the form of a video. I will complete the bullet points and make complete sentences out of them and then post the transcript here.

Before I do, though, I just want to point out what an idiotic person this primitive and 2 dimensional fool is. Maybe he is just playing a role and pretends to be stupid and only repeats platitudes and nonsense, but maybe what he says and writes is intended to be taken seriously. In that case, this person is outright dangerous.

I say this because of several things I have heard him say or what I have now read by him, which seems to put the blame of all Muslim acts of violence, whether bombings, killings, enslavements, executions, suicide bombings, kidnapping, beheadings, hangings, rapings, lashings, etc etc on the very people who are being terrorised. He seems to say that if the entire planet were to simply submit to the violent Muslims, no more violence would be necessary. We could simply give up Capitalism and Democracy and accept sharia, the Islamic version of peace.

In an interview on UK's Channel 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8gALvUDzm0) he stated that various "Western", whatever that may mean, governments were to blame for the violence, regimes like the USA, the UK and France. These countries have invaded, attacked and bombed Muslim countries, supporting Israel, a country which does the same and that this has caused some grievance amongst Muslims in the West and thinks that these grievances now justify widespread terrorism. He compares the criticism rational people have regarding violent Muslims with the persecution of the Jews by the Third Reich almost 100 years ago.

It's a bit difficult to extract the pertinent words and what exactly he's trying to say with his stammering, stuttering and nervous repetition of syllables, which, as the seasoned speaker he presents himself, is not what one would expect.

He states that Muslims in the "West", whatever that may mean, are denied practising their religion because women in France are forbidden to wear the "hijab". This is absurd for 2 reasons. 

1. In France women are prohibited from wearing garb concealing the face, in legal speak: "not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face". 

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900)

So not the hijab is banned, but anything which obscures the face while in public or in public servant functions, just like any other French citizen.

2.  The "hijab" is not mentioned in the Islamic Koran in connection with clothing, not once. The Koran does not stipulate that women should cover their bodies excepting face and hands or anything close to it. The various forms, colours and shapes we see are not a religious requirement, but a cultural tradition.

Woman in Europe can freely worship any god they want and can dress how they want in private and in mosques or any place of worship, just not in public, something which is imposed in more and more countries in the EU. So just as I, an enthusiastic nudist, can't go naked on a beach in Oman, the Omani female can't conceal her face in Europe. It's a matter of mutual respect.

Al Andalusi is also well versed in double speak or side-stepping issues. Interview partners are not used to the lies and deception employed by Islamogists and fall prey to their tactics. This interview is no exception, where the lady asks al Andalusi whether he was offended by the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo and he replies that, yes, he was offended, but does not condone the violence as Islam prohibits - and this is where the deception lies - taking the law into your own hands. Now, the beginning makes it sound as though he was going to say Islam prohibits killing others, which it does not. Islam, the Koran in this case, expressly allows this in 5:32 for example it forbids to "slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land", saying that anyone who spreads "mischief" can rightfully be killed by a Muslim. So it would not be taking the law into your own hands but following the text of the Koran. You need to know the Koran, Islam and Islamogist tactics before you can spot these tricks. In his Blog, Andalusi calls this - and I quote letter for letter: "I discusses Charlie Hebdo, the Muslim community, and Western Hypocrisy" [sic]

He frequently attempts to hide behind bizarre concepts such as race or the useless word "Islamophobia". A person can't choose or change their race, but can change their beliefs and favourite gods. Islam and phobia are defined terms - just the combination is bar any useful information. I could also make up a word like "Kuffarophobia" and hide behind it and whine about all the injustice and violence I have suffered at the hands of Muslims, but I don't because it would be dishonest and an emotional cry for help, like a child screaming for mummy.

If I wanted to, I could go on and on, tearing up his blog, which is so childish and primitive, but I will leave it at that and add my video transcript.

On 15. March 2015, the BBC Big Questions topic on Apostasy in Islam was broadcast.

As usual, they had a collection of vivacious and active guests, making it a mix they need to retain viewers. We were not disappointed as at some stage everyone was shouting over the others and caused a bit of a stir. In this episode it was not Hamza Tzortzis or Adnan Rashid who did not answer a straight question, but another Islamogist, Abdullah al Andalusi.

This “slave of allah” considers himself to be quite a debater as well as a thinker. Wow! What does he think? Well, for example that Spain was invaded and conquered by the Spanish, killing the innocent Arabs and Moors and driving them back into Africa. How unjust and brutal.

He also thinks proofs is the plural of proof, which he claims to possess for the existence of all the gods, including the one atheists don’t believe in.

These are proofs, in case he’s wondering. What else he thinks is the usual Muslim apologetics mambo-jumbo we all know and laugh about. He is the constant victim and everyone else is to blame for Muslim atrocities today - except Muslims.

So this is the guy who will be playing a leading role in this 20 minute segment on whether apostates should be killed in Islam.

The moderator, Nicky Campbell, started off by asking an ex-Muslim, Amal, to tell her story of her life after leaving Islam

Amal Farah - apostate

She is well aware of and accepts human nature and even though she seemed nervous, managed quite well to point out that this is the modus operandi condoned and recommended in the doctrine of Islam, not some random violent humans. She talks about the individual interpretation of Islam, the level of brainwashing, which stifles any dissent within the community, the ummah and what she herself experienced. What is disturbing is that this reaction to apostasy, ie the change of mind regarding the adherence to a belief system, can result in violence, and, ultimately, murder. She makes an excellent point, highlighting that the attention is focused on the hot-heads, leaving out and totally ignoring those who quietly support this pernicious mindset. It once again shows that there is no single Islam and no real Muslim.

After her 2.5 minute introduction, the moderator turns to a Muslim apologist, the Islamogist Abdullah al Andalusi, trying to establish a basis for the ensuing discussion. He asks a very straightforward question.

When all sharia conditions apply, in a perfect sharia state, should apostasy be a criminal offence? Yes/No

Oops, he was not ready for that at all and looked as though he’d just been hit by a bus.

To buy himself some time he provided a rehearsed sound-bite, useless and petty. A platitude.

But anyone expecting an honest answer now will be deeply disappointed.

When the moderator insists, Andalusi starts stammering, stuttering,and again the moderator urges Andalusi to answer his question - but he’s unable to do so. He can’t decide whether or not he should do what every sane, decent human being would say: no, it should not be a criminal offence to change your belief and something which can get a person killed.

The question is repeated again and again, he side-steps, making it look cringe worthy and embarrassing.

So, does the Islamic ideology demand that anyone who deserts the community must be killed?

Let’s start with the Koran:

In 4:89 it says: "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

9:12 confirms " And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."   

There are a few further sentences, but not as clear. In the hadith, it gets much more violent and direct.

Bukhari 52:260 "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him" 

Bukhari 83:37 "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations:

(1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,)

(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and

(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari 84:57 " Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him"

Bukhari 84:58 "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.'  Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed "

Bukhari 84:64 "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection"

So in my eyes, it seems there is an indication that killing someone who leaves Islam is the norm.

Nicky Campbell, the moderator, is no fool and knows the games Muslims play at never making a clear statement and staying vague and ambiguous so they can later re-interpret what was said. He again insists and then asks Andalusi whether he even understands what apostasy means.

After finishing his awkward stumbling and stuttering, Andalusi replies, acknowledging that Islam is a political ideology by stating it is sedition, encouraging disobedience of your country’s government or treason, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country's government or of helping your country's enemies during war”.

Unperturbed at not receiving an answer to his question, the moderator now asks Andalusi whether he renounces what a recent co-speaker of his mentioned, obligatory FGM, wife beating, killing of gays and apostates, whose blood is halal, permissible.

Andalusi does the same thing once again, waffling, rambling on and on, beating around the bush without actually saying anything. He will NOT condemn these views.

His neighbour, comedian Kate Smurthwaite, couldn’t hold back and chastised Andalusi who looked pretty sheepish by now,

The moderator gives up on Andalusi and turns to another Muslim, the former Imam Usamah Hassan, who very calmly explains the history of treason in the form of apostasy and encourages Andalusi to provide a simple and honest answer.

Even when asked by a Muslim, Andalusi can’t provide a straight answer, stumbles and side-steps, thinking he can trick everyone into forgetting the factual questions.

Amal, the initial opener, once again describes her plight and explains the problem to Andalusi, who valiantly ignores the question.

Around 9 minutes into this discussion, another Islamogist comes in, a Mohammed Shafiq, who has been trying to interject and has reacted by head-shaking and gestures and now delivers the weakest story of the show, namely that non-Muslims are joining Islam and there is no real problem of people leaving the ideology. How ignorant can a person be in the 21^st century? You now have atheists in Saudi, Pakistan, Iran and everywhere. And he maintains Islam is growing. But he asserts that ex-Muslims attack Islam.

Nicky Campbell now pulls the killer shot out of the box, badly exposing this hypocrite by citing a message he sent vie Twitter that his fellow Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, was a “defamer of the prophet, which, in light of the planned trip to Pakistan, could have gotten Maajid killed, due to the crazy blasphemy laws there.

I giggled hysterically when I watched this for the first time as I could see his jaw move and the brain say: oh, fuck!

Then he comes up with totally idiotic jibber-jabber, saying he did stupid things but upheld the honour of his prophet - by getting Maajid Nawaz killed? It shows how some Muslim apologists say one thing in public and then propagate something completely different when they think nobody’s watching.

Usamah Hassan now makes, what I consider to be the best point of the day, stating they should address the reason why Muslims leave, namely the harsh, intolerant, mindless, brainless version of Islam presented by so many groups. His suggestion is to actually embody mercy and compassion and not behave like daesh who he accuses of defaming Muhammad.

The moderator now gives Andalusi another chance - and he duffs it, again talking about something completely different, just playing the professional victim and blaming everybody else who is criticising the poor, innocent Muslims.

In his emotional weak apologetic rant he lies, claiming that not a single apostate has been killed in the UK. Since there is no statistic on this, we need to go to a report in the media. The Rationaliser - in a response to the blog Andalusi wrote after the program to deliver some apologetics for his failed apologetics - points out a case of apostasy and the subsequent killing of someone in the UK.

Andalusi is then asked again: When all sharia conditions apply, in a perfect sharia state, should apostasy be a criminal offence? Yes/No

And even in this last and final attempt to get an answer from this hypocrite, none is given.

Next a member of the audience is given time to ask a question and does the usual whitewashing, weak and stupid. Kate Smurthwaite kills it instantly by simply stating that no matter when a specific sentence in the Koran was created or when someone assigned a line to Muhammad in a hadith it was NEVER ok to kill another human being because they changed their beliefs, calling it horrific. End of story.

Next, Amal points out the history narrated according to the sunnah, where daesh follows what Muhammad, Abu Bakr and all caliphs up to Ali practiced. Daesh did not invent this.

What is quite funny is how the most idiotic guy, the one who demanded respect for himself and that everyone keeps quiet when he speaks, constantly heckles and makes funny groaning sounds in the background, interrupting others.

Usamah Hassan makes the closing statement pointing out the political nature of apostasy and how today’s orthodoxy wants to re-instate the apostasy laws which some countries have abolished in the last decades and centuries.

Because Andalusi and Shafiq constantly complained that Muslims were given less airtime, the BBC sat down and measured the time Muslims and non-Muslims talked and found that Muslims won, speaking longer than the others, so that was sorted out too....

All in all, a waste of time which demonstrates very clearly there is more than one line of division. One between the beliefs of Muslims and non-Muslims, and the other between practising Muslims and proselytising Muslims. The latter being the ones who are resorting to their dishonest tactics employed to blur the lines and never admit to facts to which they can be held accountable.