The Atheist Muslim: A Journey from Religion to Reason

by Ali A. Rizvi

him. “Well, he is just a bearded

Jefferson was a key proponent not just of freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Commenting on the statute in his autobiography, he wrote:

And, of course, 1979 was the year of the Iranian Revolution, which ushered in the theocratic fundamentalist Shia Islamic rule of Ayatollah Khomeini, enthroning him as a key player in the region. It

put both the sectarian rivalry between Sunni and Shia, and the ethnic rivalry between Persian and Arab, into overdrive.

I must admit, these tactics worked. When someone tells you you’re stupid for believing a certain narrative, your first instinct is to do anything not to appear stupid. And it seemed futile to put up a fight, because the conversation would never end: • If the translation was correct, it was being “misinterpreted”—but there was no explanation as to what the correct interpretation was. • If the interpretation was plausible, it was “specific to that time” or simply “out of context”—again, with no explanation as to the correct context. • If it was all-out false or wrong, it

was because it was “metaphor,” and I was “taking it too literally”; indeed, it seemed as if the more questions I asked, the more “metaphorical” the Quran got—anything in the text that had been proven false over the centuries was deemed a “metaphor.” • If I pointed out that many of the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arabic-speaking nations also interpreted the book in the way I was describing, I was promptly reminded that the Saudis had been bought by America and Israel a long time ago, and remember, those Egyptians even had a treaty with the Jews. And if all else failed, they’d say these were “just words” unless “interpreted correctly,” something along the lines of what we hear from apologists like Reza Aslan today.26 Needless to say, rendering the Quran’s words meaningless and giving no objective parameters for what a truly correct interpretation would look like effectively made the book immune from any possible criticism. It was a neat little trick, but I was happy to be challenged. It made me dig deeper into how the scripture could be interpreted, how the problematic passages could be rationalized, and what the historical context for some of these verses really was (see chapter 7). A second upside to this was the realization that my family and friends were truly decent human beings. As much as their denialism could be frustrating in an argument, their flat-out refusal to accept that their religion prescribed bad things meant, to me anyway, that they were good people. And ...

Was this really about extremists corrupting the religion? Or was it about moderates sanitizing it?

The fighting verses are about how to deal with the outsiders and the sinners; and the benevolent verses about how to deal with their own. No contradiction.

“This is precisely why countering religious fundamentalism through a twisted and self-convenient brand of the same religion can never work, for it would always allow the radical brand to exist.”29

And even if you look at other conflicts, sure, maybe the Islamic State is reacting to U.S. foreign policy or British imperialism (they certainly aren’t known to be fond of the Sykes-Picot Agreement), but one wonders, what can this possibly have to do with enslaving underage Yazidi girls, killing Turkmen Shias, throwing gays off rooftops, or executing apostates? My argument isn’t that religion is the only factor driving these atrocities, but rather that of several factors involved, religion is one—and a key driver.

Except that it does. “The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her when she was nine years old,” states a hadith recorded in the Sahih Bukhari collection, volume 7, book 62, number 88 (written 7:62:88). “And she remained with him for nine years (until his death).”

Cultures are dynamic by

nature, continuously evolving. Religion dogmatizes them. It cements them in their place, freezes them in time, and prevents them from moving forward.

With this, one can see what I’ve always thought of as an obvious defense mechanism on the part of many Muslims, to say nothing of religious people in general. Where there is no direct link, as with Islam and scientific achievement, every attempt is made to try and establish one. But when there is a direct link between scripture and action—as in the case of jihadist violence or hitting one’s wife—it is not only denied, but those who do point it out are labeled ignorant, or even bigoted. That, of course, isn’t a counterargument; it’s evidence of a lack of one.

Every time an event such as this happens, it’s as if they get yet another item to add to an already not-very-long list of “What about…” debate points—like the violent Christianity of the twelfth century, abortion clinic bombers, and one-offs like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik—to deflect attention from a strikingly clear pattern of hundreds of jihadist attacks happening on a daily basis, in multiple countries, in the name of Islam, with the killers citing supporting verses from the Quran and chanting Allahu Akbar at every instance. Instead, they get to say, “See? It’s not just Islam.” Obviously, this is misleading. It’s almost an exploitation of anti-Muslim hate crime victims for the political purpose of curbing criticism of the religion.

It’s plain to see that this equivalence is misplaced. Unlike the books of Dawkins or Chomsky, the literal words of the Quran, as we’ve seen, clearly encourage and endorse hate and violence against disbelievers, women, Jews and Christians, polytheists, and others (see chapter 7).

Unlike religious scriptures, there is simply no atheist “doctrine” that prescribes or commands violence.

Whenever declared Islamic jihadists kill a large number of innocent non-Muslims, the first reaction from Western moderate Muslims often centers on trying not to make Islam look bad.

Now, if he had said he was influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games, gangster movies, or hip-hop, we would see the opposite. Everyone would easily take his claim at face value.

to save Sana, but from whom? Himself? Surely they’ll realize now how rahmaan (compassionate) and raheem (merciful) he really is.

If I, as a five-year-old, can see this is a scam, surely they will too, won’t they? But almost every ritual in the immediate days after Sana’s death—from the funeral prayers to the burial ceremony—seems to involve God as a positive character, despite what he did to her. He is being prayed to. He is being asked to bless her and take care of her in heaven just hours after he painfully and callously took her away. I must be missing something. After all, I’m just a kid. They are grown-ups, with university degrees and well-paying jobs. Maybe there’s something they’re not telling me that would make sense of all of this. But I don’t dare to ask the question. I know it’s a really bad thing to doubt God.

else. It’s that fear-love combination, I would learn later, that is at the heart of what drives the battered woman syndrome, or the master-slave relationship.

Once you’ve learned to be skeptical, it’s almost impossible to unlearn it. Critical thinking fosters curiosity and widens the intellect.

“Thank you, Lord, for providing us with lots of extra, sure-to-be-wasted food tonight, instead of giving it to those kids in Ethiopia who are starving to death.”

“Yes, Ali, I will help you get an A on that chemistry test tomorrow as soon as I’m done setting off this Ebola epidemic in Africa. Then I’m all yours.” I would chuckle to myself at the absurdity

The idea of necessary, permanent death can make life seem somewhat pointless when you look at the big picture.

Now, my rational side tells me that just because something gives us comfort doesn’t necessarily make it true; that it is important to deal with the realities of the world and the universe as they are; and that rationality and reason are the only paths to discovering any kind of objective truth.

One of the ugliest and most sinister aspects of any religion is this intricate entanglement of ideology with identity, and the often dire consequences for those who have the ability and the courage to successfully pry the two apart.

#ExMuslimBecause I was told I was a Muslim. But then I learned that religion is not a gene and being born to believers doesn’t make you one.

#ExMuslimBecause The Quran, in my view, is literature that was written by men. We are yet to know who wrote it.

#ExMuslimBecause I’m told Islam gives you freedom of thought and religion but at the same time punishes apostasy by death. —@Zxop11

#ExMuslimBecause I simply used my brain.

#ExMuslimBecause I cannot fathom the idea that wretched morality of 7th century is unchangeable no matter how barbaric it is.

#ExMuslimBecause Misogyny, homophobia, stoning people to death, and killing apostates don’t suddenly become “respectable” when put in a holy book.

Then, quite literally, all hell breaks loose, unless you let Jesus in. Why must you let Jesus in? Because he loves you, and wants to save you from the horror that he himself will inflict on you if you didn’t let him in.

you achieved or attained on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth,” he said. “Being Irish isn’t a skill. It’s a fucking genetic accident … If you’re happy with it, that’s fine—do that, put that on your car: ‘Happy to be an American.’ Be happy. Don’t be proud.”8

They are “willing to go to their deaths for ideas that they have appropriated from others,” write the authors, “rather than ideas that they have chosen through independent and thoughtful reflection.”

People are much more than the ideas they believe in—or think they believe in.

“Most humans are more moral than the scriptures they hold sacred.”16

this approach to the faith stands in contradiction to the foundational precepts of the faith itself.

Faith means to believe outlandish things without any evidence, simply because someone centuries ago told us to. It fetters the intellect and taints the conscience.

Ideologies drive people apart. Community brings people together.

Remember, your religious beliefs aren’t really you. They are simply part of the medium you were cultured in when you were raised. You know, deep down, that if you were born in a Hindu family, you’d probably be Hindu; and in a Christian family, you’d be Christian. You know, deep down, that your faith is really just an accident of birth.

So, logically speaking, it can’t be about ideas, can it? Ideas don’t come with birth. They need to be considered, explored, and evaluated. What does come with birth, however, is your sense of identity.

it’s a lack of belief. As Don Hirschberg has said, calling atheism a belief or a religion “is like calling bald a hair color.”2 And Bill Maher says, it’s like calling abstinence “a sex position.”3

those who define God as an abstract concept synonymous with awe, wonder, the laws of the universe, or—as Spinoza believed—nature itself.

I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”6

Second, somewhat related to the first, he wanted to retain a sense of humility and awe, a sense that there is much about the wonders of the natural world and the universe that we as humans don’t have the capacity to understand.

It was later that I realized atheism is a position of humility, in contrast to theism, which claims to know the truth, and moreover, deems it divine and absolute. That is arrogance.

Enforcing hijab, imposing a double standard on modesty codes, shaming the expression of sexuality, and being taught submissiveness to their husbands (often the result of forced arranged marriages) are, sadly, common practices even among Muslim families living in Western countries.