In his latest essay, our Norwegian correspondent The Observer draws some conclusions about Islam that can be derived from empirical observation, rather than theological or philosophical analysis.
Here's the beginning:
I watched a TV debate on Islam the other day. It was one of those standard discussions where the Muslim panellist blamed everyone but Islam and its adherents for the massive problems that exist wherever Islam has a noticeable presence, while the non-Muslim counterpart offered very tepid arguments to try to refute those claims.
Whenever I watch debates like this, it always amazes me that the non-Muslims have such difficulties in delivering clear and concise arguments describing the true nature of Islam. They are unable to do so in a manner that completely annihilates the insidious arguments offered by the supporters of Islam. Because it should be a pretty straightforward process for those who possess more than a basic knowledge of Islam to verbally eviscerate this pernicious ideology, to show how absurd it is to worship such a deviant philosophy and how absolutely outrageous it is for its followers to insist that their ideology is worthy of anyone’s respect.
He then goes on to present some arguments for those who debate Muslims.
I would like the infidels to ask one simple question of Muslims: Saudi Arabia (the birthplace of Islam) and Iran (the largest Shiite majority country) impose the most barbarous penalties for "crimes". Stoning and flogging for adultery, cutting off limbs for thievery, beheadings for drinkers of alcohol, the noose for homosexuals, etc. They do all this in the name of Islam.
If Islam is truly a peaceful religion, then why is it that literally hundreds of millions of Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia and Iran do not utter a word of protest against the defilement of their religion by these two satanic nation states?