By Antony Flew
Antony Flew’s review of Ibn Warraq’s "Why I Am Not a Muslim" builds on themes from my article Deconstructing the West: Multiculturalism’s Hidden Origins. There, I traced multiculturalism’s roots to anti-rational philosophies that excuse ideologies like Islam as cultural equals, blinding the West to their threats. Flew and Warraq dismantle this illusion, exposing Islam’s inherent fundamentalism and incompatibility with democracy—reinforcing my argument that multiculturalism obscures the ideological danger Warraq details in his book.
Turning Away from Mecca by Antony Flew, published in The Salisbury Review, Spring 1996
(Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1995, $25.99. UK Agent: 10 Crescent View, Loughton, IG10 4PZ. Published in The Salisbury Review, a quarterly from London.)
This book, written by Ibn Warraq—a pseudonym for a man raised in a Muslim-majority country who later moved to a NATO state accepting mass immigration—is likely the first of its kind in English. Warraq organizes abundant material without a clear structure, starting with "The Rushdie Affair," which critiques the treatment of dissidents in the Islamic world and Western Islamicists’ lack of critical rigor. This is followed by chapters on "The Origins of Islam," "The Problems of Sources," "Muhammad and His Message," and "The Koran." Instead of progressing to Hadith and Sharia, he shifts to "The Totalitarian Nature of Islam" and "Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?" Later chapters cover diverse topics like "Sufism or Islamic Mysticism" and "Taboos: Wine, Pigs and Homosexuality," ending with a "Final Assessment of Muhammad" and "Islam in the West."
Warraq, not a professional Islamicist, draws all doctrinal and historical content from Western scholars, ensuring factual reliability—confirmed by one such expert. This makes the book an invaluable compilation. Unlike today’s inhibited Islamicists, Warraq fearlessly critiques Islam without concern for offending Muslim peers or regimes.
Warraq asserts that all true Muslims are fundamentalists, a point he doesn’t fully emphasize or maintain consistently. The term "fundamentalist," coined in 1920 from The Fundamentals (1910-1915), describes Christians who see every Bible proposition as God’s literal truth, like Genesis’ creation accounts. A Christian needn’t be fundamentalist—accepting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed suffices. In Islam, however, the Qur’an is entirely Allah’s alleged revelations, making all Muslims fundamentalists by definition. Denying any Qur’anic claim excludes one from being a Muslim. Media-labeled "fundamentalists" are better termed revivalists.
This limits Islam’s ability to evolve without abandoning claims and allows falsification if facts contradict the Qur’an—implications Warraq underplays. For example, he notes on p. 11 that all Muslims are fundamentalists, yet on p. 12 argues Islam threatens thousands of Muslims because most victims of "Holy Terror" are Muslim—a point tied to John Esposito’s The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, not fundamentalism directly. Warraq clarifies: "What Esposito and Western apologists of Islam cannot grasp is that Islam threatens thousands of Muslims. As Amir Taheri notes, ‘the vast majority of victims of "Holy Terror" are Muslims’" (p. 12). Here, "Muslims" means both fundamentalist believers and dissenters they target.
Why I Am Not a Muslim offers compelling reasons to reject or abandon Islam, arguing it’s fundamentally incompatible with the equal rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state. This bolsters Mervyn Hiskett’s warnings about the threat to British values from a growing Muslim minority. Flew suggests countering this with an administration enforcing equal criminal law application—e.g., prosecuting incitement to murder regardless of race or religion—and a concise, persuasive book summarizing Warraq’s arguments.
Placing this book in public libraries could reduce the threat by forcing a choice: allow wider access or expose Islam’s threat to free expression through suppression attempts.
Title suggested by Ibn Al-Rawandi: "Islam is Religious Fascism"
Note from Lewis Loflin on "fundamentalist": While a Christian "fundamentalist" believes the Bible is God’s word, today the term implies enforcing that belief through civil law and government force—something many devout Christians reject. See my article Christian Fundamentalism Exposed. As an American, I find Warraq’s use of "fundamentalist" apt. Muslims have never separated Mosque and state.
The Origins of the Koran by Ibn Warraq
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me format and refine this presentation of Antony Flew’s review. The selection and framing are my own, Lewis Loflin.
