Published on Sunday, May 19, 2013

A book entitled "Islam Dismantled", written by Sujit Das, was published in 2012. In the book Sujit has portrayed Muhammad as a narcissist. He did so by examining and interpreting the information about the life and conducts of Muhammad available in Qur'an, Hadith and other sources vis-à-vis information about narcissism/narcissists available in different sources. The book in question was thought provoking. However, it is natural that no Muslim will like such adverse ('blasphemous' in Islam) remark about the prophet.

During 2012 I also came across two posts (one entitled "Dismantling Sujit Das……") in a Pakistani site (uploaded in the name of Fasihuddin) contesting the main theme of Sujit's book. Fasihuddin claimed that his initial email was replied by Sujit with four lettered word. If so then this was very bad. However, the salient counter-observations of Fasihuddin in the said two posts are as follows:

  1. Sujit and his writing are blasphemous, venomous, virulent, poisonous, out of context (the true context was not explained), petty, convoluted, obnoxious, misleading, self-styled, cheap, with ulterior motive, perverted, uneducated, sinister, dirty, mean, dishonest, superficial, malicious, greedy, cursed, demonic, Bengali and Hindu propaganda etc.
  2. Other references are there in favour of the prophet.
  3. Islam has humanizing and civilizational force even as per many of its Oriental critics.
  4. Sujit has not examined other historical figures like Confucius, Buddha and Christ etc.. Has Sujit examined his father in the same way?
  5. Islam flourished in past 1400 years and is not defenseless.
  6. Islam is the fastest growing religion of today which negates Sujit's point.
  7. Sujit's book has hampered 'effective inter-faith dialogue'.

Before 9/11 non-believers were indifferent about Islam. But 9/11 has changed the picture. Ironically the prophet never imagined that his conducts, sayings and activities would be so critically examined by so many people even after 1400 years. I have found the situation (Fasihuddin Vs Sujit) interesting. In 'mukto-mona' I have not come across any post about the issue. Thus I would like to comment on the main observations of Fasihuddin point by point and give a general observation about messengers and religions at the end.

  1. In intellectual discourse like this, if anybody wants to contest Sujit's observations about the prophet then he needs to give counterarguments of the cited references given in the Sujit's book. Hitting Sujit and his writing with all types of negative adjectives cannot elevate the position of the prophet. Sujit wrote what he thought to be correct. But the responses of Fasihuddin carry a sense of utter frustration and despair. Fasiuddin was angry. He possibly did not know 'one who angers you conquers you'.

  2. Citing of favourable references about prophet by Fasihuddin from sources not quoted in the Sujit's book has failed in refuting the allegations against Muhammad as a narcissist and made the situation more confusing.

  3. Humanizing force is found nowhere in Islam particularly in its plunders, violence, killing, slavery and sexual exploitation of Kafir women (one-fifth of booty went to prophet). Islamic civilization was to destroy existing civilizations after Jihadi conquests or conversion through Sufi saints (Sufism was later addition in Islam and disowned by present day Islamists) and imposing of Arabic civilization and culture. Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh are some examples.

  4. Information available about the personal conducts of other great historical figures like Confucius, Buddha and Christ could not make them narcissists. However, Hitler was a confirmed narcissist. We don't have any information about Sujit's father. He is/was definitely an insignificant figure in human society and nobody has glorified him anyway.

  5. In its early stage Islam developed a mechanism to ensure constant supply of innumerable number of self-righteous Islamic authorities (petty narcissists) across the length and breadth of Muslim populated areas of the world in the form of Ulema. They are the caretakers of Islam and control Muslim society with iron hands. In recent days one only needs to follow the gesture-posture and utterances of Bangladeshi Ulema under the banner of 'Hefazat-e Islam' to understand the strength of their grip on Muslim community.

Islam means 'surrender', i.e. surrender before Allah. Islam's Allah directs the believers to forcefully surrender the non-believers before HIM through Jihad or putting the non-believers under Dhimmitude (Mohammad himself did these). Such teaching of Islam promotes animalist attitude and behavior in Muslims which is very attractive instinctively. Islam does not permit any Muslim to leave the 'best' religion. Islam allows its apostate to be killed by anybody even his son. Compulsory religious teaching during childhood permanently damages the brain of Muslim children and fills it with fictitious and ethnocentric glory of Islam. Shari'ah generate extreme fear among Muslims to express any doubt about Islam or prophet. Concept of paradise and hell is deeply impregnated in Muslim psyche. Blasphemy law is another means to infuse terror among Muslims (though it is used mainly to persecute non-believers in Islamic countries). Preaching of hatred towards Kafir is a cementing force among Muslims. Belief of all non-believers as hell goers acts as a positive force in the minds of Muslims. Concept of Dar-al Islam and Dar-al Harb is pathological but pulls Muslims towards Islam. Large family size, as has been glorified in Islam, is another point of consideration. Islam is not a religion but a fear-based imperialistic and dictatorial dogma with a perceived 'holier than thou' halo that has been running as a mafia syndicate by the Ulema and other vested interests. These are some of the reason as to why Islam has flourished during last 1400 years.

Islam lacks in internal strength. It is definitely defenseless and needs external supports of Ulema, blasphemy laws, Jihad, death penalty for apostates, parroting of Qur'an, hatred towards non-believers, restrictions on religious minority, Jumma Namaz, Halal-Haram and Zaiz-Nazaiz etc. to sustain. These protecting factors are absent or insignificant in other major religions. If these are removed, Islam will crumble down within a decade.

  1. 'Islam is fastest growing religion' is nothing but a myth. Islam does not count its apostates. It is in a self denial state.

  2. For 'effective inter-faith dialogue' all other non-Islamic religions should be accepted at par with Islam. If Fasihuddin does that then there is no Jahilia as taught in Islam. And in the process Fasihuddin will be culpable under blasphemy law of Pakistan.

All messengers/founders/proponents of religions suffered from delusions and illusions. They created their God/Allah for their followers. Some led a non-violent life and some a cruel restless one. Some propagated religion in a peaceful way while some propagated with sword, force and plunder.

There is an obvious peculiarity about the time frame in which all (nine) major world religions came in to being. It spanned over a period of mere 2700 years between second millennium BC and seventh century AD whereas human history is more than 60000 years old. After Islam, no new religion came up during next eight centuries. Thereafter some cults/religious philosophies started coming up in different parts of the world. But these were off shoots from established religions with negligible number of followers in international context.

This stoppage of the coming of new religion reflects that the need for religion(s) has ceased. Religions were said to guide people to make good human societies. But ironically religions have miserably failed to make this world peaceful. All major religions, except Islam, have lost preeminence among the followers in past century(s). Islam is in waiting. There is no escape.

comments powered by Disqus