Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī: “No non-Muslim deserves to be treated with respect”

Praise be to Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god! If you thought our beloved Shaykh had reached a moral plateau, think again! The moral excellence of the good Shaykh just seems to grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and…

St. al-Naruiji recently referred to Christians as “those idiots.” A reader then asked him the following question:

Is it really necessary to refer to Christians as “those idiots”? Do you have any idea how rude and arrogant you sound or any idea what sort of disastrous impression this might give a non-Muslim seeking to learn something about Islam?

In response to this outrageous question, the Saint gave a rather detailed response, providing flawless moral justification for his righteous use of the term “idiots.” The highlight of this sober and clear-headed response is as follows:

Since we have established above that anyone that does not accept the prophethood of Muhammad is a blasphemer, we know that no non-Muslim deserves to be treated with respect.

At this point, you must be thinking to yourself, “Of course! It all makes perfect sense now: I must never treat a non-Muslim with respect.” However, do you know what qualifies as respect? No? Well, don’t worry, the good Shaykh has been gracious enough to offer some examples of respectful conduct:

Examples would be opening doors for them, letting them enter before you through a door, standing up to greet them and the like.

The lesson is clear: if a young Muslim and an elderly nun are heading toward the door at the same, the Muslim should not open the door for her or let her enter first. If a young Muslim is sitting on the bus and an elderly Buddhist woman is standing, the young Muslim should not give up his seat. The moral beauty of Islam is just shining through!

Of course, it’s difficult to define something by example only. How exactly do we know what qualifies as respect? The good Shaykh offers the following flawless method:

A good criteria is to think, “If I was to be nice to a cat, would I do this?” If not, then you have probably reached the point of showing respect, and should avoid it.

What a truly impressive method for determining how to deal with non-Muslims! Treat them no better than you would treat an animal. Islam sounds like such an amazing religion! I mean, who wouldn’t want to convert to a faith that expects you to treat those outside it like animals?

And then, just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, St. Abu Adam offers more gems of wisdom:

So why did I use the word “idiot” when I could have been nicer? The reason is what I indicated above, I do not want to contribute to the idea that one must be nice, or that one cannot be disrespectful to non-Muslims, especially when they show enmity towards Islam. The fact that you are blaming me for what I said stresses the importance of me doing this, and you have encouraged me to do it more.

It is “important” to treat non-Muslims with disrespect and the good Shaykh has been “encouraged” to continue being disrespectful.

But, wait! There’s still more. In a response to another questioner, St. Abu Adam says, “there is nothing wrong” with being “tough” toward non-Muslims. He also informs us that a Muslim must “work to ensure that Islam is held above all other religions, to prevent it from being looked at as equal to other belief systems.” And, what better way to improve the image of Islam than by treating those who don’t believe it with toughness and disrespect? Oh, and also, Muslims are supposed to believe there is absolutely nothing good in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion; only Islam offers something good.

So, that’s our moral lesson for today, brothers and sisters. To summarize: one must be disrespectful to the 4.5 billion people in the world who do not follow Islam and one must treat them like animals. No, we’re not being sarcastic.  That’s really what he’s telling us.

May Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god give him more of whatever it is that makes him so…him.

More Awe-Inspiring Humility from Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī

The moral excellence of our beloved Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī seems to grow exponentially every minute. And, after every minute, we are just dumbfounded by the extraordinary heights to which our beloved Shaykh’s moral excellence has soared. Recently, St. al-Narūijī was asked the following question:

Also, one of my non-Muslim friends asked me this question: Is it possible for Allah (Subhan wa Ta`ala) to create a stone so large that he (Subhan wa Ta`ala) can not lift it? Could you answer that rationally and Islamically (according to the books of `aqeeda)?

To this, the humble Shaykh gave the following humble response:

This is the typical Satanic question, where a kaafir asks “Can Allah <insert impossible proposition>?” The answer to this particular question is that Allah is not a body, so the idea of lifting in the sense that Christians would think of it does not befit Allah, because He is not a body, unlike what those idiots think.

The rest of the response can be seen here. From the above, the following lessons here are very clear:

1) The Muslim questioner’s friend is a Satanic idiot.

2) The Muslim questioner’s friend is a Christian, because the Shaykh says so. (Never mind the possibility that he or she could be an atheist and never mind that a dutiful Christian just might also reject this question as a meaningless paradox.)

3) Apparently, only Christians ask questions with hidden assumptions that do not “befit Allah.” Christians can therefore be dismissed as “those idiots.”

4) Christians are Satanic idiots.

Great PR work, Shaykh! You’re making Islam look lovelier and more attractive each day!

The Sublime Maturity of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, Part II

Our beloved Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has been gracious enough to offer yet another fine example of Muslim ethics in practice.

As everyone knows, Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has presented irrefutable “proof” for the existence of his god. In a post entitled, “Wahhabi Contention: What happens if kalam arguments are undermined rationally,” Shaykh Abū Adam responds to the totally outrageous suggestion that this “proof” might not be rationally defensible.

So confident is the good Shaykh in this “proof” for the existence of his god that he humbly and modestly declares that it “is not false, and it is not antiquated, and will never be undermined.”

What is this “proof” for the existence of his god? It is the following

“…anything with a beginning needs a Creator, simply based on the existence of events; the changes we see around us. It is a simple and logically sound argument based on premises that no reasonable person would deny.”

Wow!! I mean, what idiot could possibly refuse to believe in Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god after that argument! As the good Shaykh humbly and modestly puts it, he “can tell you” of ” philosophers in this day and age that have been silenced by these types of arguments.” Go get’em Shaykh! You silence those evil kuffar! Oh, and just in case you had the audacity to ask for an example of “philosophers” who have been “silenced by these types of arguments,” the good Shaykh has this to say: “A friend of mine has a Phd in math from Berkley, for example, and he converted because some of his students presented such proofs.” What an amazing story! Nothing beats unverifiable anecdotal accounts like this one. I mean, it’s so much more persuasive than Christians claiming to have been personally visited by Jesus.

Oh, but there’s more. The good Shaykh has this to say about Immanuel Kant:

“Kant, the miserable kaafir, may Allah give him what he deserves along with his ilk, did not bring anything new that the scholars had not already faced.”

If this awe-inspiring example of humility and exceptionally good taste doesn’t convert you to Islam in the next second, there has got to be something wrong with you! I can’t wait to convert to Islam and finally acquire a moral license to start calling people “miserable kaafir” and praying that Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī’s god will give them what they deserve along with their ilk. (There’s so much justified contempt in the use of the word “ilk”…I just love it!!)

And, there’s still more! The good Shaykh continues:

“You see, the philosophers were and are in general haughty, proud of their intelligence, and showing this was important to them, so they engaged in debates to win, even if it meant denying their own mother, and one of the ways to do that is to simply engage in producing doubts.”

I mean, never mind whether this comment bears even the slightest correspondence to reality. Its self-confidence is all the proof we need. Thank heavens the good Shaykh is anything but haughty. Thank heavens, also, that he is not in the least bit proud of his own intelligence, as his pride in his ability to prove the existence of his god makes abundantly clear.

Unbelievably, there are some rebellious souls who are simply incapable of beholding the awesome moral beauty embodied by Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī. The Shaykh was apparently asked the following totally ridiculous question by one such rebellious soul:

“Do you realize how arrogant *you* sound when you say things like this? What a pity that your heart and mind is so closed.”

To this nonsense, the Shaykh gave the following, totally non-arrogant and highly intelligent, response:

“Muslims today have been influenced by western style education systems to respect people like him, or even have awe for them. Thus an antidote is needed. My contribution is to say that he is just another miserable kafir.

I do not see a connection between asserting that Kant was just another miserable kafir and saying that my heart is closed.”

Right on! I mean, if the good Shaykh can’t see a connection, there can’t possibly be one. What was that silly questioner thinking? That the good Shaykh is blind?!? Good heavens! I can’t even bear to contemplate such an outrageous idea!

Anyway, that is our moral lesson for today. Please join me in expressing uncritical devotion and fawning gratitude to the noble Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī for providing us with a fine and flawless example of sublime moral conduct. Ameen!

The Sublime Maturity of Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, Part I

Our beloved Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī has done us all an enormous favour by providing us with an example of Muslim ethics in practice. In a piece elegantly titled, “Moderating Idiocity,” the good Shaykh has demonstrated the proper Islamic way to deal with a terrible evil: asking too many questions.

I first visited his website, Sunni Answers, hoping to learn how Muslims deal with certain issues, such as proof for the existence of the Muslim god, predestination and human accountability, and human evolution. I was less interested in hearing a statement of Islamic beliefs than in learning whether and how Muslims deal with certain obvious difficulties that arise for a person of the Islamic faith. For example, do Muslims have rational answers to these issues? Is Islam compatible with modern science? How does Islam deal with the modern scientific account of human origins? Do Muslims respect reason, logic, and evidence? Are Muslims committed to truth? Conversely, is it the case that Muslims are simply driven by fear to cling irrationally and obstinately to a certain catalogue of beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs can be supported by logic, reason, or evidence?

I posed a number of questions on Sunni Answers. At first, I was treated with suspicion, then hostility, and finally censorship. It all happened so very fast.

I gather that Muslim ethics imposes a limit on the number and kind of questions you are allowed to ask. If you ask a question about, say, predestination and accountability in Islam, and if a Muslim scholar’s response only generates more questions, you should remain silent, be grateful that he even gave you a response (no matter how silly or pathetic), and resist the urge to ask more questions. Asking more questions is clearly being unruly and improper. Decency requires unquestioning acceptance of a Muslim scholar’s response (again, no matter how silly, incoherent, and utterly pathetic).

I made the mistake, however, of persisting. When I was told, for example, that human beings have a will, but that this will is itself willed by the Muslim god, I asked whether it even makes sense for a Muslim to speak of the former as a “will”. After all, what does it mean to say that human beings have a will, when they have no control over their own actions? This, however, was clearly a mistake. I overstepped my bounds. I was not acting like a humble questioner, whose duty is to accept the answer and to never, ever question the answer.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m sure the good Shaykh is exhibiting only the highest standards of ethics and maturity when he employs terms like, “idiocity.” I’m sure he has only the best of intentions when he insists that anyone who doesn’t accept his ridiculous “proof” for the existence of his god must, of necessity, practice “atheist/agnostic debating acrobatics.” It can’t possibly be on account of his pitiful intellectual shortcomings that anyone would be totally unimpressed by his “proof” for the existence of his god.

I’m also sure the good Shaykh is exercising sound judgment when he accuses me of not having read his “proof” for the existence of his god, even after I specifically asked questions about that “proof”.

“That being said. This person, who calls himself “Sign of Saturn” has appeared in one thread, where he wanted to start a debate about Kant. He was told that this is not important to us, or even the topic here. Then he said that someone lied about Kant by calling him an atheist, even though he had been told explicitly by the person who’s post he inferred it from that he had not meant to say that. Then he comes back and wants to debate whether Islam allows lies. Hello? Moderated”

You see, the good Shaykh has certain rights the rest of us don’t have. He has the right, for example, to misrepresent what others actually say and do. After all, accuracy isn’t required when speaking about the despicable kuffar. He also has the right to make accusations about others. He has the right, for example, to accuse others of sophistry, even though his “proof” for the existence of his god is itself a highly pertinent example of sophistry (though not a very good one, since it couldn’t possibly persuade anyone). He also has the right to dictate the terms of the discussion, dismiss questions he doesn’t like, answer questions you didn’t ask, and determine who is unruly and who is sufficiently obedient. Oh, and that, “Hello? Moderated” bit is classic! Great one, Shaykh!

“I felt the best choice in the end was to just block such sophistry, because it fills the website with confusing material for those who come here to learn. I won’t block anyone that has a serious question or is willing to at least try to understand what I am saying.”

Clearly, I’m unruly and not sufficiently obedient. Clearly, I’m guilty of “sophistry” and spreading “confusing material.” Clearly, by asking him questions for clarification, I’m not trying to understand him.

Oh, and “posters need to be courteous with Islam and Muslims, as this is Allah’s religion,” but Muslims apparently need not be courteous with non-Muslims, who can be generically accused of sophistry. Muslims apparently “have no permission from Allah to let a mocking kafir be disrespectful to Islam or a Muslim,” but apparently nothing stands in the way of letting a Muslim be disrespectful to non-Muslims, especially when those non-Muslims are much-despised atheists and agnostics.

The good Shaykh also says, “Muslims who think it is praiseworthy to humble oneself for a kafir should remember this.” Oh, those despised kuffar! They must humble themselves towards us, not the other way around! (And, in case you are wondering, the idea of dialogue among equals must never cross our minds!)

As if to make it abundantly clear as to what warrants censorship, the good Shaykh has this to say:

“Our purpose is not to engage with people who want to side-track us from our stated purpose. If their questions and concerns fall within the general scheme of our stated purpose, then fine and good. If they detract us from that purpose, then they will be moderated. We can only handle so much in a given day”

Indeed!

Thank you, Dear Shaykh, for that lesson in Muslim ethics. There is no question that you are an inspiring moral example for the rest of us. Please keep up the good work and please continue to be a role model for our times.

Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī on Islamic Ethics

An over-enthusiastic Muslim going by the name of “loveProphet,” a VIP member of Sunni Answers, made the following remark:

“By the way, i have yet to see any atheist who has not believed what he has for reasons other than what i mentioned and the Sheikh has mentioned. Whether it is Kant or Dawkins.”

I found the remark a bit strange, since it appeared to be the product of a thoroughly pitiful and uneducated mind, one so shallow that it assumes that anyone who is a philosopher and not a Muslim must of necessity be an atheist.

So, it was pointed out to “loveProphet” that Kant actually wrote a book entitled, The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. That Kant wrote such a book certainly makes it difficult to accuse him of being an atheist.

However, when this was pointed out, I was first told, “It’s irrelevant whether or not Kant was an atheist.” Then, Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī declared, “I hope this is not going to be about Kant,” only to then declare that he’s “just another blasphemer.” Finally, loveProphet, the one who lumped Kant together with Dawkins, had the audacity to accuse me of “jumping to unwarranted conclusions.”

This raises a serious question about Muslim Ethics. Muslims seem to think they have a moral license to make ignorant and slanderous comments about “blasphemers”. Does Islamic ethics permit such behaviour?

I tried posing this question for Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī, but for some strange reason, it wasn’t posted. I’ve therefore reproduced the question below:

…..

Suppose a pitiful, uneducated man hears another, equally pitiful, uneducated man declare that the Prophet Muhammad was a court jester. Suppose this first pitiful, educated man forsakes entirely the intellectual responsibility of actually learning about Islam and simply parrots the view that the Prophet Muhammad was a court jester. According to Islam, how should one respond?

Now, suppose a similarly pitiful, uneducated educated man hears another, equally pitiful, uneducated man declare that Immanuel Kant was an atheist — and this not as a term of endearment, but rather as a term of slander. Suppose this first pitiful, uneducated man forsakes entirely the intellectual responsibility of actually learning about Immanuel Kant and simply parrots the view that Kant was an atheist. According to Islam, how should one respond?

Do you condemn those who make irresponsibly ignorant statements about Islam? Do you condemn those who make irresponsibly ignorant statements about non-Muslims? Would your response to the above scenarios be the same? If not, why not?