Share:

Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and her husband Deah Shaddy Barakat were brutally murdered in their home by Craig Stephen Hicks, in Chapel Hill (North Carolina) on February 10, 2015. The public has condemned their murders as a hate-crime because two of the victims, Razan and Yusor wore hijabs, therefore stood out as Muslims. What’s problematic about this logic is that if a person is wearing Islamic attire and is found to have been murdered by a non-Muslim—how does it automatically constitute a hate crime? By such logic—every person who has ever killed or harmed anybody who happen to practice religion are also committing hate crimes. It’s an abhorrent crime no matter what the motivation was and must be condemned. The premature implication of elements will not serve them justice.

What’s strikingly clear is that those who vehemently call it a “hate crime” are also rejoicing at the fact that an openly atheist man had killed three religious people.

Those who are against the criticism of Islam, the bandwagon of people like Reza Aslan, Mehdi Hasan and CJ Werleman are all having a hallelujah moment—and they have expressed their celebration via social media. Their reaction is nauseating as they have no qualms about using the murder of three innocent people to invalidate the criticism of an ideology.

Mehdi Hasan righteously tweeted if people will now demand to have atheism “reformed”. Where is the book of atheism for such reform? When did atheists call for the murder of theists in the name of a non-belief in a personal god? Where are all the armed atheists committing atheist-jihad and slaughtering tens and thousands of innocent people? Where is the evidence that Hicks was motivated by atheism to commit his crime? Hasan has constantly deflected Muslim extremism as having nothing to do with Islam—yet he now smugly wonders about a reform for atheism over one trigger-happy atheist? Milking the graves of innocent people to fit own narrative is a typical low for every apologist of Islamist violence. Lucky for Hasan—he believes in flying horses to come swoop him away from having to face his fallacious arguments.

And then we have our mighty lion, Reza Aslan—who roars the same slogan as Hasan, that Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam and makes glaringly asinine statements about the rights of people in Islamic nations—responds to Hicks’ crime by barking at Richard Dawkins, professing his undying disbelief in Dawkins’ condemnation of the attack. Dawkins is not a malicious man who applauds the murder of innocents—in fact, he condemns violence, and that is precisely why he denounces religion. Remember who and what Aslan blamed for the Charlie Hebdo massacre? He certainly had no issue braiding straws and portraying the Kouachi brothers as disenfranchised Muslims who merely reacted in defense when cartoonists satirized their religion. But now—he implicates atheism because the killer was a fan of Dawkins. Aslan is a man who cannot live without a god—as he had gone from being a Muslim to a Christian before converting back to Islam again—so it’s clear why he would find vocal atheists threatening and call them “anti-theists”.

CJ Werleman, knowing very well that pseudo liberalism will get him attention, jumped on this opportunity to place blame on Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. He stated “The anti-Muslim animus you two sow has now reaped 3 slain Muslims: @SamHarrisOrg @RichardDawkins Blood on your hands! #ChapelHillShooting” but he realized the colossal flaw in his tweet and had deleted it shortly after posting it. But don’t worry—people took screenshots.

Nothing like misquoting and taking out of context for CJ to make his point ... http://t.co/wIMytwaPOf pic.twitter.com/OiVrb6ScW4 — John Sargeant (@JPSargeant78) February 12, 2015

What Werleman did here was beyond just “wrong”—he is doubling down on hypocrisy and contradiction (along with Hasan and Aslan) with the double standards of indignation. I had previously discussed his disconnection with reality and concluded him as a vile opportunist and he readily reinforces that conclusion with more obtuse statements.

Based on numerous reports—Hicks is a staunch NRA supporter and proudly carries a firearm—and with the ongoing parking dispute—he may have acted on impulse as any other trigger-happy individual. One of the leading causes of homicide in the United States is injury by firearms over petty disputes among friends, family and neighbors. With his entitled personality mixed with rage—it very well may have triggered the killings. I am willing to consider it a hate-crime on the basis that race may have played a role—but what I fully condemn is the argument that the man had targeted the victims for their religion because of atheism.

Remember that time Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris went on about what it takes to be a true atheist and incited hate against theists? Me neither!

Dawkins and Harris did not invent atheism. Nobody is born believing in a god and religion. Atheism has no set doctrine either so holding atheism and atheists responsible for Hicks’ crime is not just intellectually conflicting—but also insidious in the sense that it reiterates the theist hate-mongering of atheism as a sin and a threat to the sanctity of life. It’s an unprecedented reminder of the dark ages where criticizing religion was met with death and torture—which is actively practiced in Islamic nations today.

Theists have seized the opportunity to claim this is evident of “atheist fundamentalism”—even though there is absolutely no evidence to prove that claim—unless personal bias is “evidence” in which case we can all show our support for kangaroo courts while we’re at it.

Muslims worldwide are demanding the criminalization of the contempt of their religion—they want to have other people’s feelings criminalized to satisfy their own feelings. We cannot achieve peace and justice if activists and religious reformists are threatened with legal action for daring to discuss institutionalized abuse. The puritanical rage theists have is primitive and must never be accommodated if liberalism is to survive—human rights should never be bent or conformed to the convenience of their ideology. Every time you alter free speech to protect the “feelings” of religionists—you are promoting blasphemy laws, plain and simple.

Is it dishonesty or genuine stupidity that prevents people from admitting to what could happen if free speech is limited by threat of criminal prosecution…?

People also can’t fathom how the Kouachi brothers were branded “terrorists” and Hicks is being labeled a “lone wolf gunman”. Logic was jettisoned faster than light, leaving intelligence to hang itself.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre was a result of Islamists who were recruited and backed by al-Qaeda which warrants the label of “terrorism” whereas the Chapel Hill shooting was a result of a single, trigger-happy gunman who acted alone and does not have a terrorist organization to back his crime—therefore a “lone gunman”. Both crimes should be condemned and have no justification. Except people still have no problem writing apologia for the Charlie Hebdo massacre because apparently, Muslims murdering non-Muslims in the name of Islam isn’t a hate-crime?

The same outrage witnessed over the Chapel Hill massacre is nowhere to be seen for the 20 Muslims killed by the Taliban [for actually being Muslims of different sect] in a Shia mosque just three days later in Peshawar. And what about the thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims systematically raped, sold and slaughtered by the Islamic State—where is the outrage for these victims? Why do people continue to convey that Muslim extremists from all over the world are somehow justified in their killings of innocent people? Muslim lives do matter—not just when killed by non-Muslims—can we acknowledge that? Surely, Boko Haram, ISIS, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have much gratitude for your apologies on their behalf though.

The call for an Islamic reformation is valid—and the past fourteen centuries are a testament to that. People still cannot live openly as an atheist or a non or ex-Muslim in any Islamic nations without persecution. Even those living in the West cannot criticize Islam for its abuse without facing threats, as many people, including myself had experienced.

Just last week, a known egomaniac living in the United States befriended a former friend of mine [who is also a Muslim with a persecution-complex because her public high-school denied her and a Muslim teacher the right to have a “Muslim club”] just to expose personal information about me online after I tweeted about him shamelessly using the Chapel Hill murders to promote himself. People like this are what I call ‘moderate-Jihadis’—they are so desperate to silence people from discussing the hateful and violent rhetoric of religion, that they punish critics by publicizing personal information, knowing very well it makes it easier for Muslim extremists to target them.

The criticism of Islam is necessary in respect to the millions of lives lost in the name of Islamism [Islamic colonialism]—which is an ongoing terror, as displayed by ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Threats will not consume humanists from denouncing this atrocity—they will not back down just to console the vicious prides of egomaniacs.

Cognitive dissonance creates an entitlement in theists and pseudo liberals that make the approach to debate them with respect impossible as many of them immediately commit character-assassination by calling critics “racist” among other erroneous label so the audience favours them. They behave like a three year old in a candy aisle, screaming and stomping their feet with tears rolling down their face [over a chocolate bar] as strangers stare at the parents like they just strangled the child.

I implore the theist community to stop hijacking the rights of others if they want any respect for their religion. Above all else, please, please let Razan, Yusor and Deah rest in peace instead of happily jerking their graves to supply malice against those who criticize ideologies. The dark-age will not be revived—not in their names.