Honest arguments against Islamist

Ibn Warraq:

Judging from the way his critics have been going on, I would say that Tunku Varadarajan was on to something in his Forbes column "Going Muslim."

The reaction to his important and well-reasoned article ironically confirms and further underlines his central point; namely, that out of political correctness we refuse to see and act on the obvious--the implication of Islamist ideology in violent acts such as the murders perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Instead of addressing the substance of Mr. Varadarajan's arguments, the self-appointed spokespersons for Islam turn the whole discussion around and present Muslims as the victims of "hate-speech" or "Islamophobia." This now-familiar rhetorical tactic deflects public attention away from an entirely legitimate and necessary question: Would this crime make any sense apart from Islamist ideology?

While posing as victims, some Muslims absolve themselves from considering Islam as in any way responsible for acts such as those of Maj. Hasan. Certain groups of Muslims are adept at nursing and flaunting their grievances, and, as Theodore Dalrymple once put it, there is nothing like grievance to prevent people from examining their own responsibility for their situation.

...

Muslims have invented two new human rights: the right not to have Islam criticized, and the right not to be offended. Religions do not have rights, only individuals have rights; and second, there is no such right as "the right not to be offended." There are many passages in the Koran that offend me, but I do not advocate the banning of this book.

....

There is much more.

Radical Muslims are adept at playing a victim strategy and they do it on many levels. They search for reasons to be victims and many times make it up. These are people who have no serious argument and use victimization to avoid one.