[pp. 25-26, Humanist Transhumanist, essay by Demetrios Vakras] [In 2009, Robert Cripps, in whose gallery, my works were exhibited (Guildford Lane Gallery, Melbourne, Australia) took offence to what I wrote here, and asserted that it was "racist" for criticising Islam. He had no objection however to the criticisms I levelled at Judaism or Christianity.] The evolution of the figure as muse is discussed in an earlier essay. This muse is in the middle of a bomb–cratered landscape. The figure attached to mechanical devices is assailed by war. The war is that of religion against a secular society. The religion that assails secular society today is Islam. There are those who though ignorant of the Koranic basis of this assault condemn critics of that religion as expressing a personal unfounded bigotry, and then claim that acts of terrorism which have been committed in the name of Islam are by militant "Islamist" "radicals". However, these militant acts by practitioners of that faith are not a radical departure of that faith based on a misunderstanding of the Koran. According to the Koran life is made attractive by god so that we desire not to die as it is intended by god as a test of our resolve to obey his edicts: only those of strong character will willingly forgo this attractive life to die waging war against unbelievers to demonstrate that they are true Muslims 1; the purpose of life is to wage war 2; the only way to guarantee ascent to heaven is to die while killing unbelievers 3; and, according to the Koran, this makes Islam the "House of Peace" (hence the concomitant claim that Islam is a religion of peace) 4; because war occurs only because there are those who are not Muslim against whom war must be waged until these unbelievers are either converted or are forced to pay the poll–tax 5. My painting is a criticism of the secular society which is sacrificing the secular muse. There are some who maintain that Koranic–based Islamic law (Sharia) would result in a society not much different from any western society (such as this one) which they believe enforces values which are Christian. Such critics have not read the Bible either. If this society was run on Biblical–based law, I would have been killed as an anti–Christ a long time ago (1 John 2.22 , 2 John 7); the Sydney "gay" parade would instead be a day where homosexuals are dragged to a public place to be stoned to death by people who have travelled from the rest of the country to participate (Leviticus 20.13, Leviticus 20.15, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10)[error: the passage here should be Leviticus 18.22-23 (NOT Leviticus 20.15)]; people would be stoned to death for working Sundays (Exodus 31.15); and we would not have anyone of an alternate faith among us (Exodus 22.20, Deuteronomy. 30.17-18, Exodus 23.22-24, etc.). (Though some Christians claim that when their god took human form as the Christ he renounced these laws, this is incorrect. It is clearly stated in Matthew 5.17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”) The greatest difference between Muslims and Christians (today) is that a Christian will, though aware of doctrine, actively go against the instructions of doctrine and renounce it. Not even the so–called "moderate" Muslims renounce any passage of the Koran and even go so far as to deny the existence of such passages. Any Muslim (or someone formerly Muslim) who does openly concede to the existence of such passages such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and openly renounces them is actively pursued by faithful followers of that religion, as this is considered apostasy and apostasy elicits the death sentence 6. The Koranic passages paraphrased above: 1 "If you have suffered defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that Allah may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you ...that He may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels. Did you suppose that you would enter Paradise before Allah has proved the men who fought for him...?" (The Imrans) 3.140-142 "He created life and death that He might put you to the proof and find out which of you acquitted himself best." (Sovereignty) 67.2 3 "Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: 'March in the cause of Allah,' you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men. Allah has power over all things.” (Repentance) 9:38 “Are you waiting for anything to befall us except victory or martyrdom?” (Repentance) 9:52 4 “Allah invites you to the House of Peace [Islam]. He guides whom He will to a straight path.... As for those that have earned evil [refusal to accept Islam], evil shall be rewarded with evil. Misery will cover them...They are the heirs of Hell.” (Jonah) 10.26-27 5 "Fight against such of those to whom Scriptures were given as believe neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Repentance) 9 :29 6 "...those who deny Allah after professing Islam and open their bosoms to unbelief shall incur the wrath of Allah and shall be sternly punished. For such men love the life of this world more than the life to come." (The Bee) 16.107 © Demetrios Vakras |
In April 2012 the "Atheist Foundation of Australia" held a "Global Atheist Convention" in Melbourne.
The "Atheist Foundation of Australia" was emailed first by Lee-Anne Raymond, and then by myself with regards to our being sued for, ostensibly, being atheists. The President of this so-called "Atheist Foundation of Australia" responded thus:
"in my opinion you have made a mistake in publishing this generalisation. 'Not even the so–called "moderate" Muslims renounce any passage of the Koran and even go so far as to deny the existence of such passages.'"(President of the "Atheist Foundation of Australia", 8 April 2012)
This is no "generalisation". And if the President of the "Atheist Foundation of Australia" ever had or still has in mind a Muslim whom he might claim is a "moderate", and who is willing to first concede to the existence of a passage in the Koran such as 4.34, or 3.140-142, or 33.58 ... or 33.32-33; and from whom he can then procure a public renunciation of these or other passages (that is, procure a repudiation of these passages by having them denounced, or by having such a person publicly proclaim their refusal to abide by the commands made in such passages), then by all means make such a person available and have this person make such a renunciation.
However, as my next sentence reads, once "moderates", such as Ayaan Hirs Ali, who expressed their moderation by renouncing passages such as 33.58 and 33.32-33 (by refusing to abide by their commandments), are condemned as apostates, blasphemers, heretics and unbelievers. By not wearing a veil Ali renounced passages from the Koran. For this she was declared an apostate. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now an atheist, because her being "moderate" was a blasphemy in Islam. She is now no longer Muslim, and cannot be counted as "moderate".
Below: screenshot of the wikipedia entry for "Islam and Blasphemy".
A campaign to exempt Islam from being criticised, that seeks to protect Islam from atheists, has been spearheaded by the Human Rights Commission of Australia.
This has been undertaken on behalf of Pakistan which has been pushing for a resolution to be introduced into the UN Charter of Human Rights to prohibit criticism of religion.
Pakistan has undertaken this on behalf of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Co-operation).
In 2008 the Human Rights Commission of Australia made a submission to the UN to support Pakistan's push to have criticism of religion, hence atheism, be made illegal. Of interest, Australia voted against Pakistan's proposal in the UN, despite the recommendations of its own Human Rights Commission which had been advocating against the human rights of Australia’s citizens.
(To explain the absurdity of the actions of Australia’s human rights body; this is a body which has been charged with protecting the human rights of Australians. These rights are inviolable. However, this same body sought for those human rights to be violated by seeking to protect ideas from being criticised, ostensibly because ideas (which have no humanity and have no feelings, and therefore have no HUMAN rights capable of being protected or violated) could cause their holder humiliation and embarrassment on having them criticised negatively, simply because ideas are held by humans. The right to hold and impart ideas, which is one of the human rights that should be inviolable, which takes for granted an understanding that ideas will both be critical of other ideas and be open to being criticsed themselves, was to be subjected to a limitation that negated the very right to hold or impart an idea. This was an action that ran counter to the human rights the Human Rights Commission was set up to protect. The legislation defining the Commission's role, which the commission actively acted against, can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ahrca1986373 )
(further information on the OIC action against "defamation of religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations#2011 )
This essay was never intended to be complete - nor was it an attempt at a complete - dissertation on Islam. Within the constraint of a limited number of pages, 16 in total, I attempted to explain my artworks, not all of which had anything to do with this theme, and with most of the pages being for the reproduction of paintings. There was never enough room to write on how and why Islam:
i) is the exhortation by god for believers to commit acts of violent hate as the means by which believers can gain redemption from original sin;
ii) how the Koran defines acts of violence and hate as good and necessary, because god (Allah), being perfect cannot be evil which means that the call for violence is considered to be a call to commit good;
iii) how the only "moderates" in Islam are individuals who cannot OVERcome their humaneness, their innate humanity which has nothing to do with Islam. These are poeple who cannot OVERcome their innate humanity and cannot therefore execute necessary hate demanded by the Koran;
iv) how individuals who though born into the faith of mandatory hate, but who might not practice hate, should never be considered as "moderate" representatives of Islam simply because they are incapable of OVERriding their innate humanity.
Such persons are NOT "moderate" Muslims, they are persons who cannot OVERride their humanity, their human conscience, despite the exhortations to commit violence, and despite the threats of punishment if they do not commit violence. Such "moderates" are people whose human values prevent them from fulfilling their religious obligation. Such "moderates" are "moderate" DESPITE Islam, not because of it.
* Unbowed Atheist - ICV doing all that is called for in the Koran makes one a Muslim, not extremist or Islamist
Our values must be arrived at by the application of reason based on an understanding of our common humanity. Atheism is not criticism of Christianity - that would make it "a-Christism", not atheism.
RELATED
"Blasphemy Laws, Atheism and Offending Religion"
edited 8/12/2014 to add links
edited 7/2/2015 to add criticism of Human Rights Commission and a link to the legislation that defines its role which the commission sought to circumvent