How often we hear the familiar questions; - “Prove that God exists?”, “Prove that Muhammad (SAW) is a Prophet of God?”, “Prove that the Quran is the word of God?”. These fundamental questions are not unreasonable; the Muslims should and have provided answers on these subjects. However, the problem arises when the so-called ‘freethinkers’ pose such questions to launch a subjective interrogation with preconceived ideas of right and wrong. As if they have no burden of proof to justify their own dogmas and criteria.

They construct a framework of dialogue where they assume the position of judge, jury and executioner by demanding not just answers but ‘proof’ of innocence, from the Muslims, as if they have been put on trial in a court of law! The framework of ‘dialogue’ constructed in essence is a one-way traffic lane: the Muslims are required to produce proof and the ‘freethinkers’ will fire away with their allegations and issue judgements while slyly avoiding the need to prove their own premise. Consequently, the burden of proof is conveniently shifted entirely upon the Muslims turning the debate into an inquisition! Eventually the ‘freethinkers’ take on the liberty to use their ‘free’ mind to express the so-called allegations against Islam using the most vulgar language like the depraved criminal hoodlums!

Any neutral observer with commonsense will appreciate the fact that a debate across two different value systems (ideologies, civilisations or religions) by rational necessity, demands that the burden of ‘proof’ should be a two-way process. Meaning, that both side needs to provide evidences to: justify their respective positions and cross examine each others viewpoints! And ideally neutral arbiters or agreed common set of criteria should be used to determine the validity of the proofs. Otherwise both sides will only end up trading accusations and counter accusation, continuously diverging and never converging. Under such premise it is no longer a debate but the whole exercise is futile.

The common trait amongst these so-called ‘freethinkers’ is their obsession with demonising Islam simultaneously lacking the ability to elaborate on their alternative that is as comprehensive and convincing as Islam with its more than 1.5 billion followers, 1500 years of survival and its constant rising popularity. Dispensing allegations and criticisms, without providing a comprehensive alternative that can rival Islam prove that these ‘freethinkers’ are intellectually bankrupt as well as cowards and hypocrites; - because, even a school child knows how easy it is for a hooded individual to call everyone else ugly!

The clearest evidence of their hypocritical and cowardly nature with pretence of being ‘rational’ lies in fact that they do not to elaborate on their alternative solutions as vociferously as they express criticisms of Islam and Muslims! My recent interaction with one anti-Islamic fanatic who runs a hate-filled website fulltime confirmed this point. He said he was on a mission to take Muslims out of Islam. But when I asked him where to, eventually and reluctantly he started to mention about his so-called alternative formula. Yet, there was no section elaborating that alternative formula anywhere on his hate-filled website! Well, why not? Because, he is driven by blind hatred of Islam otherwise his alternative solution would have had prominence on his website. After all the provision of a comprehensive alternative to! Islam is by far the most powerful and rational approach to convincing the Muslims to leave Islam! Reconfirming the point, how easy it is to criticise others while hiding behind a mask. As expected none of these self-praising ‘freethinkers’ have produced anything that is original other than what has been borrowed from the Orientalists represented using vulgar language.

The ‘freethinker’ went on to label the entire 1.5 billion Muslims as “animals” and “sub-humans” like a typical intellectual midget with a heart of a racist Nazi. Note while labelling the Muslims as animals he also confesses that he was born into a Muslim family, so surely that must also make him an animal too unless of course he admits to being a bastard child! Or he is just plain stupid not realising the implication of his own words!

These irrational rationalists constantly bark about why Muhammad (SAW) is not a Prophet based on their subjective allegations, which are also rooted in religion in the first place! If we disprove their charges, we only confirm is the innocence of the Prophet (SAW) but that does not establish his Prophethood. Otherwise do we then assume any individual who is innocent of those allegations is a Prophet? If they were really objective in this issue they would have defined what constitutes Prophethood in the first place and then argue from that basis against the Prophethood Muhammad (SAW). Such examples proves that these ‘freethinkers’ are not really interested in impartial analysis but foul mouthing, hurl insults like the unemployed racist hooligans.

On the other hand when the ‘freethinkers’ are asked to provide justification for their alternative solution, that is after eventually getting to know what the alternative is in the first place, they demonstrate the most irrational behaviour, churning out contradictory statements. Eventually they degenerate to a position when score an own goal by claiming that their premise is self-evident, so we should take their word for it! Now, that sounds like real irrational fanatics trying to shove down other people’s throats of their self-evident ‘truth’. This is after barking at the Muslims for not providing evidence and accusing them of being blind followers.

Another ‘freethinker’ argued that secularism in Europe brought progression in the field of science and technology, therefore the Muslims should adopt it blindly. But I highlighted that secularism also brought countless genocide using these scientific advances which continues to this day. It also produced colonisation, mass exploitation and the most extreme forms of racist ideologies like Nazism, Communism all resulting in immense human misery. Furthermore, it is rather shallow to assess a merit of a civilisation by its scientific achievements instead of how those were utilised.

In frustration, he then argued that those aspects cannot be attributed to secularism as nobody killed or colonised in the name of secularism. Well, if that is the case did the scientist also invent in the name of secularism? So why attribute good fruits to the tree and leave the bad fruits out? Besides secularism is not an elaborated reference point like a religious creed but it is simply a framework whereby mankind becomes absolute sovereign and the traditional ‘religion’ is confined to the individual sphere. Therefore, all corollary actions of adopting the secular framework must be attributed to secular ideology in the absence of a holy secular-book. And, in line with my earlier prediction he refused to answer my points by de! leting my email responses before reading them but kept on sending me his degenerating tirades. Thus, the ‘freethinker’ transformed himself into a non-thinker!

The so-called ‘freethinkers’ overlook another serious flaw: as they construct their allegations against Islam ironically they use values that are deeply rooted in religion. As an example the ‘freethinkers’ show disgust at the marriage of Prophet Muhammad to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ (Zaid Bin Harith). Of course the purpose of such an action was to dissolve the notion of adopted ‘son’ in Islam as Prophets by definition define morality and ethics; otherwise Prophethood is more or less meaningless and irrelevant. The real contradiction is why the ‘freethinker’ found the marriage of a man supposedly to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ to be offensive in the first place; - because, in his mind the adopted son was effectively held the same status as a real son. So, where did he get that value from in the f! irst place and assume that to be right? Surely, if ration is the criteria which he constantly boasts about, who can place a limit and where, on such issues. Clearly the ‘freethinkers’ carry preconceived ideas about morality and ethics that has religious roots, yet they use those same values to wage a war against an established religion (ideology) hypocritically.

Therefore, the ‘freethinkers’ are in reality hypocritical-thinkers, non-thinkers, superficial-thinkers. In fact they are the ones that display fanaticism and real blind-faith that they refuse to see the blatant contradictions in their so-called alternative formula. Others degenerate to exhibit silence and to hide their embarrassment they go into an abusive mode. Naturally, as when people shut down their faculty of reason they start exhibit their ‘freedom’ like the animals do in the jungle!

Any impartial observer really undertook an objective study of Islam one of the first questions would have been posed is: who is the author of the Quran. Especially considering that the Arabs of the time, including the most hostile opponents of Islam never claimed that the Quran was the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) or any other living Arab. In fact some of the opponent categorically stated that Quran was not the words of Muhammad (SAW). The decisive words (Mutawatir Hadiths) of the Prophet transmitted to us are clearly distinct from the wordings in the Quran in terms of style. The style is very much part of the character of the person.

Also, why suddenly at the age of 40, Muhammad (SAW) started to produce such a book, as the reality is that even the most talented individuals will evolve from a certain point. There are no evidences to suggest that Muhammad (SAW) had complied similar works prior to producing the Quran, with the Quran representing the apex of his works. Muhammad (SAW) was not even known to be one of the poets or writers in the pagan Arab society. Nor does the Quran itself evolve in its style from the beginning to end, it remains consistent. This is unusual as any work of man has strengths and weaknesses. To answer these questions it necessitates examining the Islamic sources from the established Islamic scholars before examining the viewpoints of the opponents of Islam.

Then comes the question of how do we know, how can we trust all these narrations. Life itself works on this principle of trust. We do not assume that human beings are natural liars unless we have evidence. Are we really certain that our parents are who they say they are? Who witnessed the copulation and recall the successive growth of the embryo to the birth of the foetus? What do we do when a stranger tells us not to go in a certain direction as danger lies ahead? How do we react? So, why such scepticism on the multiple corroborative narrations about these events, confirmed by scholars across the board but these ‘freethinking’ hypocrites are willing to believe any old theory as fact!

The ‘freethinkers’ are frustrated as they are neither bale to provide a comprehensive alternative nor can they stop the growth of Islam. So, they have no choice but to lower themselves to fight Muslims by going on their four limbs! In essence, these so-called ‘freethinkers’ are irrational reactionaries obsessed with Islam. Surely if Islam is inherently evil, people would automatically abandon it but instead continue to gain converts in the heartland of the ‘freethinkers’. But thinking about such things would overload their ‘freethinking’ mind and in fear of heresy like the medieval monks they suppress their intellect instead of their natural drive to procreate!

Too many Muslims have fallen for these traps laid by these malicious ‘freethinkers’ who put on a mask of rationality and logic by poising questions that evolve into interrogation as if they have no position or alternative to justify. For example, if one in is not convinced about the evidence provided with respect to the existence of God that does not automatically mean that a case has been made for the absence of God. The sly ‘freethinkers’ usually get away with this as they are not forced to place their alternative to Islam on the agenda during these pseudo dialogues.

Hence the proof of the existence of God must be accompanied by what proof is there to support the absence of God. Likewise the proof for Muhammad as the messenger of God must be accompanied by the secular perspective on what constitute messenger and why Muhammad does not add up those criteria. Or whatever the alternative viewpoint they hold. The same goes for Quran, how can one claim it is not the word of God then they must have a set of criteria for what constitutes the word of God! When the tables are turned on them watch the ‘freethinkers’ transform into little Gollums and run for the nearest cave!