Hamza Tzortzis lies again!

Islamist Hamza Tzortzis has been bragging that he is to debate me on the 15 February on his Facebook page. I was more than happy to oblige especially since his gang looked so foolish the last time they tried to debate me at my talk on the Islamic Inquisition in Dublin.

Today, though, I was told by the Atheist Society of the University College of Cork that the event was postponed since a topic couldn’t be agreed upon with the ‘Muslim Cultural Society’ (is that what they are calling demands for the Caliphate nowadays?) leaving no time for publicising the event.

Anyway it seems that Tzortzis is now bragging that I have cancelled the event. Please, don’t flatter yourselves. It is usually your lot that goes about cancelling events because you don’t like free expression and what have you – not us.

When Tzortzis suggested debating ‘Islam and Secularism: What is more rational’ I merely said that the comparison made no sense.  Islam is a belief; secularism is a principle for the separation of religion from the state and public institutions. I suggested that the debate could be ‘Theocracy and Secularism: what is more rational?’ but it seems any suggestion of a political nature were deemed ‘Islamophobic’ (go figure) or ended in a denial of the existence of theocracies.

More interestingly, Tzortzis said he wanted to stay out of politics… Yeah right! Pull someone else’s leg please. I think it’s more likely that he doesn’t want to debate me…

By the way, Hassan Radwan says he couldn’t resist responding to one of the sneering remarks about me on Tzortzis Facebook Page:

Mayra Khaleeq said: ‘Maryam Namazie really has no rational philosophical and scientific arguments against religion. I am afraid that her talks border insanity. No offense to her, she has the right to be insane, but I have the right to reject insanity.’

Hassan Radwan retorted: ‘Mayra Khaleeq – Yes, in a secular society you have the right to reject anything Maryam Namazie says and you have the right to publicly criticise her and any other beliefs or ideologies and you have the right to practice your faith, make Da’wah, build mosques and give public speeches and try to convert others etc… Would you grant her the same right – under an Islamic State – to apostate from Islam, campaign publicly on behalf of her beliefs, criticise Islam publicly and convince Muslims Islam is false?’

Seriously, though, you have got to laugh. Those defending religion – and Islam at that – speaking of rational, philosophical, and scientific arguments. And I’m insane?


  1. MichaelD says

    OOOOOO I know ! You could try to settle the timeless debate! Fought over the decades with no end in sight each side rigid in their position….. Kirk vs Picard!

  2. piero says

    I’ve see Tzortzis on YouTube. He is a complete idiot. The very fact that he thinks “Islam” and “Secularism” belong to the same category testifies to that.

    I don’t really see the point of your debating him. Much depends on the audience. I think it is not worth debating him in front of a crowd of his intellectal peers, as Dan Barker did.

    • artem says

      Maryam, pl. do not elevate hamza tortoise by getting into ‘debates’ with him. ‘Intellectuals’ such as him should be left to wallow in the muck of their own ‘logic’..

    • Emilio says

      Actually, the idea that secularism is somehow a neutral idea is rather odd. The separation between church and state has taken many forms. Certainly French secularism is far closer to atheist theocracy than British secularism, where there is less division between church and state. Spain seems to be moving to the French model in regards to non-Catholics, but remaining almost non-secular in relation to Catholicism.

      Indeed, the fact that states have such different understandings of secularism and the separation of the state and the church proves that secularism is far more than just an abstract ‘principle’. In fact the term ‘secularism’ is used a bit like the term ‘Islam’: secularists use secularism to mean intrinsic good, and Muslims use Islam to mean intrinsic good.

      Furthermore, to try and separate ‘secularism’ from all of its Enlightenment luggage (the industrial revolution, capitalism, colonialism, the slave trade, etc.) seems like a very ahistorical understanding of what secularism means.

      I would suggest you read a book entitled Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, which deals with the history and cultural implications of secularism as a concept. The author, Talal Asad, is a renowned anthropologist who has spent much time studying religion -though not religious himself- and his conclusion is that secularism as a concept and cultural construct shares many of the characteristics of organized religion.

      Not surprisingly, I can see plenty of evidence of that in the comments of this blog.

  3. BillyJoe says

    “I think it is not worth debating him in front of a crowd of his intellectal peers”
    ….because they would not understand a word you said.

    • wong perkasa says

      Theocracy? Do you mean state is governed by Ulama/ Priest/ Monk? Do they use holly book as source of law (fiqih/ syariah in Islam)? If no, it is just another form of secular state, which is controlled by Monks.
      When we r talking of Islam, it is not only a set of beliefs. It is not only spiritiual matter. For an example Islam promotes against riba (usury), to avoid sin. It is serious in Islam and we have to build the system. Muslimin have to enforce Allah’s law on earth, muslimin have to fight against crimes etc.

  4. says

    In case for some unfathomable reason they also find “Sharia or secularism: which is more rational?” also offensive, I’d suggest that there are alternatives, such as:

    Is it more rational to base some or all of our laws on Islam, or not to base them on any religious claims?

  5. Kevin says

    ‘Theocracy and Secularism: what is more rational?’

    I don’t this makes sense either since neither are truth claims. It should be ‘Theocracy and Secularism: what is more preferable?’ or ‘Theocracy and Secularism: what is more conducive to a (insert positive word here) society?’

    • says


      Kevin, behavior may be irrational.

      For instance, if I want to get some fruit, but instead of going (for instance) to a supermarket to get them, I decide to go to a hardware store to buy them, that would be an irrational behavior, since it’s obvious that the means will not be conducive to achieving my goal.

      Of course, in most cases, the irrationality of some behavior is not so obvious to everyone, but the point is that behavior – like, say, basing public policies on the Quran – may well be irrational.

      Granted, someone in a government might base some public policy on the Quran as a means of gaining the support of many Islamists, even though he very well knows that the Quran is just an old book full of errors and offensive claims. Maybe such behavior wouldn’t always be irrational – whether it would be would depend on a number of unspecified variables.

      But of course, that’s not the kind of situation we’re talking about here.

      • Jeremy says

        How will multiculturalism work if people like you insist on separating people based on their views? You’ve actually taken the time out to write an entire article to insult a fellow human. I’m ashamed that this is what we’ve come to.

      • pursis says

        What is irrational about islam? Please enumerate all the irrationalities you know of. You’ll should study the religion before indulging in degrading remarks.

      • Bilal says

        Shut up you Idiot. You’re Irrelavant. Instead of writing debate him or ask him to clarify what he meant.

  6. Basel says

    Granted that you (Maryam) were the first to come up with an excuse to why you didn’t want to attend. The blame should rest on your shoulders. Plus, Hamza has debated far greater intellectuals than your pitiful self. You would just be a waste of time.

    • says

      Err, yes that’s why he was so busy promoting his debate with me and talking about before it was even set! Of course he may have debated far greater intellectuals than myself but that does not make him one – far from it particularly given what we have seen from him so far.

      • Basel says

        Promoting? You were only one of many others that were listed as future debates with Hamza. You happened to be the only one to refuse to debate.

        • says

          I didn’t refuse a debate – I know you are all so used to lying you can’t help yourselves. I just said the debate title didn’t make sense as he was stupidly comparing apples with elephants… I am surprised an ‘intellectual’ like Hamza can’t tell though. Err maybe it’s because he isn’t one.

          • Basel says

            Did you know the title of the debate prior to initially agreeing to it? What you should have done is express your dislike for the title during the debate (maybe during your introduction); maybe then you still could have had your “fun”.

            But to refuse to debate because you disliked the title is questionable. Particularly because you wanted to change his side of the title. If you really wanted to spread the “truth” about Islam (after all you seem so keen to do so) you wouldn’t have cared what the title is.

  7. lordshipmayhem says

    Mayra Khaleeq:

    “I have the right to reject insanity.’

    And how I wish Mayra would exercise that right every once in awhile…

  8. cag says

    Maryam, some discussion points when interacting with theists.

    I have never prayed in my life of 70 years. I live comfortably but not spectacularly. I have friendships that have lasted for decades. My health is fine for my age. I have never smoked or been drunk. The hardest drug I have ever taken was an antibiotic.

    Theists, how is your life better than mine? How many of you live in poverty that you can’t pray away? How many of you have incurable illnesses that you can’t pray away? How many of you have addictions that you can’t pray away. How many of you have doubts about the effectiveness of prayer?

    Prayer, the most ineffective way of doing nothing.

    • islmqursoulres says

      #post 13
      Okay so u have never smoked, never drank, etc. etc. but will you never die? Do you have that in control……………no you don’t…………….as you didn’t have over your birth.
      Instead of thanking God for giving you such a nice health, good medical facilities and all the luxuries for a healthy lifestyle………you are bragging here about your state here???
      Millions of people die hungry on the other side……..they don’t know a thing such as a medical checkup………….while people like you would rush for a doctor for having some pain in your ass………..
      There is much to ponder about cag, sorry for me being rude! But people are not sick because they pray…….it’s because they have patience in what god gives them……and surely they have a great reward……………….

  9. Ismenia says

    Does Mayra Khaleeq have any rational philosophical and scientific arguments in favour of Islam? What about hearing voices from God in your head, that borders on insanity. We have a right to reject that insanity (in this country).

  10. piero says


    You are an idiot. No offence intended, just a statement of fact.
    If someone invited to a debate on “King crabs or iPads: which is more harmonious”, would you accept? If you did, you’d waste a lot of time and effort just to say that the debate is meaningless. Not quite the most intelligent course of action, is it?

    Your claim that Maryam sould have made clear her disagreement during the introduction is just about the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen in any blog, for the reasons stated above.

    No wonder Islamists are not taken seriously. If your mental abilities are anything to go by, a debate between Maryam and Tzortzis would be a massacre; unfortunately, your malfunctioning neurons would be incapable of noticing.

    • Moe says

      @ Piero

      Really, that is the most idiotic statement you have ever read? Frankly, I think anyone who says “the most” to anything has to be an overly emotional individual and should not be taken seriously. A person who has greater reasoning abilities and rationality will not need to use language like that nor would they insult their opponents by calling them idiots.

      By the way King Crabs and Ipads are clearly not linked – how about you find comparisons that parallel the magnitude of the Islam / Theocracy versus Secularism title that was being suggested? And Basel also pointed out that a debate had been agreed upon and Maryam did not have to agree to the debate title when it had been proposed. Stop idolizing Miss Maryam, Piero. Secular or not, there is honour in keeping your word – do you deny this?

      Islamists are taken seriously all over the world (not just by the CIA) – Islam is a course that is taught at every major university – Is Secularism taught? Learn how to debate with respect or you end up sounding like a whiny baby.

      Sincerely, Muslim Forever – God Willingly.

      • says

        Moe said:

        Frankly, I think anyone who says “the most” to anything has to be an overly emotional individual and should not be taken seriously. A person who has greater reasoning abilities and rationality will not need to use language like that…

        You mean language like this?

        In the name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful [emphasis mine]…

        By your logic, every sura of the Qur’an, and by extension the Islamic religion, is “overly emotional” and “should not be taken seriously.”

        Moe also said:

        … nor would they insult their opponents by calling them idiots.

        But the Qur’an says:

        Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

        So, apparently it’s okay to insult your opponents by calling them the worst of created beings, who will burn in hellfire, but calling them idiots is rude? Interesting how you hold mere human beings to a higher standard than Almighty Allah.

        But now we know that Allah is “overly emotional… [lacking] reasoning abilities and rationality… not to be taken seriously.” Thanks for clearing that up for us!

        Sincerely, Winterwind
        Atheist forever -(Insha’Allah)

        • Basel says

          “And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong; and say (to them): ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilaah (God) and your Ilaah (God) is One (i.e. Allaah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)’”
          [al-‘Ankaboot 29:46]

          • says

            I am not of the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Scripture). I am an atheist and mushrik (Hindu). So this verse doesn’t oblige you to be polite to me. I think you’re supposed to chop off my head or something. Also I’m a homosexual, so you might want to push a wall on top of me and stone me to death, too.

          • Basel says

            This was Allah command to Moses:

            Quran Surah Taha (20:42-455
            Go, you and your brother, with My signs and do not slacken in My remembrance. Go, both of you, to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed. And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear.

            Pharaoh wasn’t Ahl Al Khitab in fact we perceive him as being the worst of creation because of his brutality, arrogance, and for claiming to be god.

          • says

            Basel, I’m not sure if you’re still around, but I wanted to reply to you. Pardon my tardiness as I have a lot of work to do and two final exams next week.

            This was Allah command to Moses:

            Quran Surah Taha (20:42-455
            Go, you and your brother, with My signs and do not slacken in My remembrance. Go, both of you, to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed. And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear.

            Pharaoh wasn’t Ahl Al Khitab in fact we perceive him as being the worst of creation because of his brutality, arrogance, and for claiming to be god.

            I wasn’t aware of that verse, so thank you for educating me. Many of the Muslims I’ve met are able to tolerate Jews and Christians, but when it comes to people outside the Abrahamic faiths, they have nothing but contempt for people whom they see as ignorant, barbaric mushrikeen. I am rather bitter after my encounters with such Muslims.

            While the verse you cited appears to advocate gentleness to people outside the Abrahamic traditions, I notice that you said nothing in reply to my statement that I’m gay. This is a very important point. You must realise that under Sharia (which I presume you’re in favour of because you support Hamza Tsortis) gay people are condemned to corporal punishment or even death. I take arguments for Sharia law seriously, because you are calling for the implementation of a legal system under which I, and all people like me, would be killed. To understand how I feel, imagine your reaction if you learned that I was supporting a law that said all Muslims should be killed.

            You might say that Sharia law is not supposed to be violent, and that the governments in those countries are misinterpreting it, but I am interested in the practical, applied side of Sharia law, and not the theoretical, philosophical side. Theory doesn’t help someone who is whipped, beaten, stoned or hanged.

            The fact is that most fundamentalist Muslims (and Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus) have ignorant, bigoted attitudes towards gay people.

            Based on some research I did earlier, here’s some info from the Mission Islam website: The Qur’an itself prescribes no punishment for homosexuality (unlike the Old Testament, e.g. Leviticus).

            “We also sent Lut : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81″

            “What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk.” Qur’an 26:165

            However, based on the homophobic hadith:

            “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
            (Really? God’s throne is so shaky that a bit of hot gay action disturbs it? Like I need another reason to kiss boys, lol!)

            “The Prophet said: (1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”” (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)

            “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))

            “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.” (Tabarani, sahih)”

            Each sura of the Qur’an says that God is the most merciful, the most compassionate. I find it difficult to believe that an infinitely compassionate being would create people, imbue them with homosexual feelings and then force them to deny those feelings for the rest of their lives. It is the cruellest, least compassionate act I can think of to deny someone the right to love someone else and express that love.

            You might say that we ask people to control their desires all the time. After all, if I have desire to steal, kill, rape, the law prevents me from doing so. Cheating on my spouse might not be against the law, but all people agree that it would be immoral (unless the person doing the cheating is a Democrat president or Republican presidential candidate). So how is asking people to control their homosexuality any different?

            The difference is that in case of fraud, stealing, killing and raping, it is self-evident that these acts cause harm to another person. It is quite a stretch to compare love or sex between two consenting people to acts of violence carried out without someone’s will or knowledge. No such analogy can be made for homosexuality, although that doesn’t stop religious people from trying.

            At this point you might trot out the standard argument that “the homosexual lifestyle” is in fact dangerous to other people as a society, because gay men have higher rates of sexual transmitted diseases and recreational drug use than the population as a whole. (I’ve heard all this before. Anti-gay arguments are the same regardless of whether they come from Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists or any other homophobic bigots).This argument fails for a number of reasons.

            Firstly, it is true that gay men have higher rates of STI transmission than the population as a whole. However, lesbians (gay women) have much lower rates of STI transmission than both heterosexuals and male homosexuals. If we consider that the morality of a sexual orientation is inversely proportional to the attendant risk of STIs, it seems that God loves lesbians and approves of them more than anyone else. For some reason, religious people don’t buy this argument. They will argue that gay men are immoral because of our increased STI risk, but they won’t admit the logical conclusion that lesbian women are more moral than anyone else because of their lowered STI risk.

            Secondly, the fact that sexually transmitted infections exist is not an argument against sex. Rather, it is an argument against risky, unprotected and/or promiscuous sex especially with strangers. If religious people were truly interested in lowering the transmission of STIs, they would not condemn people with a particular sexuality and drive them underground into risky situations, but rather support sex education, protection and responsible sexual practices.

            Thirdly, there is nothing about casual sex, drug use or the party scene that is inherent to homosexuality. Gay people have a range of lifestyles. Despite being gay, I’m not into party drugs. I don’t even drink alcohol, and hardly touch tea or coffee. I’m not promiscuous, in fact I’ve hardly done more than a bit of kissing and heavy petting. In contrast, when I was in school, and even now in university, most of my heterosexual friends are into partying, alcohol, sometimes drugs and casual sex. The point is that nothing about these things is inherently heterosexual or homosexual. If you want to argue against these things, fine, but don’t conflate them with sexual orientation.

            Finally, recognising same-sex relationships is not corrosive to social stability or “against the family”. Same-sex marriages have been legal for several years in “Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.” (Source: Wikipedia) None of these countries has experienced a significant decline in living standards, social stability, or birth rates since legalising same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage actually strengthens the family, because it recognises that gay people have families too, and that our families are not inferior to anybody else’s in the eyes of the law.

            In conclusion, by advocating Sharia, you are advocating for an entire class of people, my people (gays and lesbians) to be stripped of their legal rights, persecuted, driven underground and generally treated like shit for no defensible, rational reason. It is appalling that anyone can continue to hold such views in the 21st century.

            The Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful? Yeah, right.

  11. Moe says

    Basel: “WAAAH WAAAH” Please I can’t take you seriously. I am going to respond to Winterwind who clearly has more eloquence and a brain (even if he has misplaced them in athiesm).

    Winterwind: Those passages are referring to people who are tyrants (think Pharoah from the Old Testament) and no, as hateful as you are, you don’t apply. God knows best. I wish better for you. Best of luck – Salaam – Peace.

    • piero says

      Basel and Moe:

      You should try a new career as a comedy duo. I’m sure you’d be even more popular than Jesus and Mo.

      Anyway, vocational advice is not my thing. Let me first reply to Moe: as I said in my post, idiotic was not an insult. but a statement of fact. Basel is clearly an idiot, since he is incapable of articulating a sensible argument. Really, should one accept to take part on a debate where the first thing one would do is dismiss the very theme of the debate? That’s an idiotic suggestion; hence Basel is an idiot; hence you are an idiot too, because you support him. (I’m having second thoughts on my suggestion concerning the comedy duo: people laugh at the pretense of stupidity, not at real stupidity. Maybe you could learn some intelligent phrases by heart and thus try to fool the audience.)

      Moe said that king crabs and iPads were not linked. Thank you. I hadn’t noticed! On the other hand, you didn’t realize I chose two wholly unrelated concepts in order to highlight the incoherence of the proposed debate title. I can’t believe I’m really spelling this out. I fell vicariously embarrassed. I really do.

      I don’t idolize anyone. We are all human beings, and we all have our shortcomings. For example, I’m arrogant, and you are an idiot. So far, however, I’ve seen Maryam proffer cogent arguments, and her opponents resort to the most egregious logical fallacies. Just like you, in fact.

      So Islamism is equivalent to Islam? Courses on Islam are indeed taught at all major universities, but courses on Islamism would be a novelty. Before you engage in debate, understand what the terms mean.

      I fear not sounding like a whining baby, because I am an adult and I assume responsibilty for my actions. Perhaps you should redirect your advice to those Muslims who are forever complaining about having been offended.

      Now, Basel: you can cherrypick quotes from the Koran until hell freezes over. You won’t convince anyone. We’ve read the Koran, and found it appalling. For every apparently benevolent verse (such as the one you quoted, which in fact has an evident undertone of menace), you can find hundreds of hateful and obnoxious ones. Now, I’m sure you will reply with some asinine comment, such as “you must read the Koran in Arabic to get its true meaning”. Bollocks. Not even current Arabic speakers understand the Arabic of the 7th century. Either Allah doesn’t exist (a thesis I subscribe to) or he/she/it is a complete moron who/which expects people to understand a message written in a dead language. No wonder most Islamists are less than too bright.

      • Moe says

        PIERO SAID:
        WAH ,….ISLAM…..WAH WAH WAAAAH WAAAH..Why must I be the only edumacated person on this planet? WAAAAHHH “

      • Basel says

        Actually I was born and raised in the US and have a minimal understanding of arabic and yet I understand the quran quiet well. Anyone fluent in arabic can understand it.

        Menacing? The quote practically mentions that you should debate kindly and if they are rude or harmful than say that I believe in one god and that’s all.

        By the way, you’re very immature for someone your age.

        • piero says


          So you were born and raised in the US, and you know a little Arabic. Yet you claim that anyone fluent in Arabic can understand the Koran. OK.

          First: the question that comes immediately to mind is, how do you know? Since you are not fluent in Arabic, how can you possibly know what a fluent speaker understands of the Koran? How can I understand how an expert cosmologist thinks about the Big Bang, given that I am not a cosmologist? Lacking the necessary knowledge, I can only take their word for it, which is a notoriously unreliable method of determining the truth. Hence, I refrain from making staments about the Big Bang: I don’t fully understand it, and I’m in no position to claim otherwise. Similarly, you must surely be aware of the fact that Islamic scholars disagree on the meaning of several passages of the Koran, yet you claim to understand it. Well, A+ for self-confidence, F for self-awareness.

          Italians claim to understand Dante perfectly. That’s because they know next to nothing about the development of the Italian language. Words may sound familiar to them, but in Dante’s time they had wholly different meanings. So they will read “Tanto gentile e tanto onesta pare” and say that the meaning is obvious. But they don’t know that for Dante “gentile” did not mean “courteous”, but “of noble origin”. And Dante was writing much later that Mohammed’s transcribers. If you can accept a suggestion from an older man, do your homework before you spout nonsense. I know it’s good advice, because I’ve spouted nonsense uncountable times.

          So you think I’m immature for my age? So do I. Maturity is an ill-defined concept, but I would be tempted to interpret it as “acquiescence, lack of passion, resignation”. What you seem to be saying is that I’m being unfair because I’m an old man and you, as far as I can tell, are barely a child. Well, that’s not my problem, is it?

      • Basel says

        I highly doubt she would have agreed to a debate if she didn’t know the name of the title and/or what she was going to debate.

        Islam vs Secularism is not apples and oranges. Islam is broad and Secularism is also broad. They both have areas where the contradict each other and that’s where the debate should have been about (e.g. Islam – divine law while Secularism – man made laws, Islam – belief is that there is more to life than this world while Secularism – “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life”, etc…). But if Maryam still had a problem with the title she could have addressed it during the debate; particularly because she already agreed.

        By the way, arrogance is a horrible thing (no doubt it’s in all of us). I just hope we can learn to humble ourselves.

    • says

      Moe said:

      Winterwind: Those passages are referring to people who are tyrants (think Pharoah from the Old Testament) and no, as hateful as you are, you don’t apply. God knows best. I wish better for you. Best of luck – Salaam – Peace.

      Your reply is fair enough. I have often argued to bigoted Christians, atheists and Hindus that the quotes of the Qur’an must be understood in their historical contexts.

      In my last comment I was being a little facetious and trying to provoke you. That was childish, and I’m impressed that you replied politely instead of getting angry. However, it doesn’t change the fact that your Islamist ideology is dangerous for society. I hope you will switch to a more moderate form of Islam that accomodates secularism, or else lose your faith completely and replacing it with something more enlightened, like humanism.

      Also, calling me hateful is a bit strong. I can be a arsehole sometimes, but once you get to know me, I hardly ever bite people unless they deserve it.

      I wish better for you, too. Peace.

      • Moe says

        @ Winterwind: Thank you for having a respectful exchange. I appreciate that you have an argument to present not just arrogant statements (like Piero – who I am having tons of fun with clearly! :D).

        I have learned Islam from compassionate people – that human connection makes a huge difference to understanding and practice. Or else, religion, like any defined set of principles or beliefs, can become poisonous and create silos instead of being expansive and enlightening. Take care – M

  12. piero says


    Please stop embarrassing yourself. It is painful to watch. Say something a human brain could come up with, for fuck’s sake! Attempt a reply. Put forward an argument. Do something to make me doubt that all Islamists are incapable of rational thought. Hamza Tzortzis thus far has done everything in his power to convince me that Islamists are worthless morons. Please do something to convince me otherwise. I don’t like to be forced to accept such an unpleasant fact.

  13. piero says

    What? No reply? Is that a sign that you are accepting your utter inadequacy to partake in a rational discussion?

    I’ll take that as a sign of hope. When Islamists come to realize there is no place for them in the civilized world, we’ll all be that much better off.

    • Martyn N Hughes says

      ‘When Islamists come to realize there is no place for them in the civilized world, we’ll all be that much better off.’

      And so say we all.

      • piero says

        Come to think of it, it should read, “When the civilized world realizes there’s no place for Islamists in their midst…”

        • Moe says

          Piero brooded: “Come to think of it, it should read, “When the civilized world realizes there’s no place for Islamists in their midst…””

          Oh Piero – compared to other people on this blog, I think you are a few fries short of a happy meal. When I read that last line you wrote, I can imagine you shooting away “Islamists” whereever you see them.

          Take care of yourself 😀 Relax, don’t get so worked up. Leave the rational, non-whiny, arguments to the other smart people on this blog.

    • Moe says

      Piero fizzled: “WAH, F**K, WAH, ISLAMISTS, WAH, GRUNT, WAH, WAH, ARGUMAMENT, WAH WAHH RATIONAMALISM, WAHWAHWAHWAHWWAHWAHAHWHA, I am so smrt, SMRT, wah wah wah…..wah!!! wahh!!!”

  14. piero says

    Moe, I’d never shoot anyone, except if that someone was pointing a gun at my daughter. You can sleep peacefully. I would never resort to physical violence to make a point.

    I don’t hate you. You are but the product of your genome and the inputs collected by your brain in the course of your life. You have no free will. Of course, the same applies to me. However, this process of mind configuration has favoured me. You will no doubt claim that it is you who has been favoured, and might be excused for thinking that the situation is symmetrical. But that’s precisely because it is not symmetrical at all: you think you are as entitled to you beliefs as I am to mine, and that’s where you go wrong, because I do not have beliefs. I accept as probable that for which there is sufficient evidence: Newton’s theory of gravitation is probable, but Einstein’s theory of special relativity is even more probable. I guide my actions by working out the most probable state of the world and the most probable consequences of those actions.

    Instead, you choose to lead a life based on belief. By definition, belief is trust in that for which we have neither proof nor enough evidence. You believe in the existence of Allah, for example, although no perceivable experiment has ever shown that his/her/its existence is even probable. You don’t understand that this approach to life is silly, because you’ve been conditioned to believe since you were a baby. I have no problem with your beliefs at all, as long as you do not expect anyone else to conform to them. If you try to impose your beliefs on me, for example by expecting me not to draw pictures of Mohammed, or to grow a beard, or to force my wife to wear a headscarf, then you are impinging upon my freedom, and have become ipso facto my enemy. As long as you rants are limited to the linguistic level, I have no problem either: I can debate anyone, and probably I’d win the debate, because I’ve read a lot and thought a lot. But if you attempt to convert your rants into action, into actual attempts to interfere with my life, then you’ve defined yourself as my physical as well as my intellectual enemy.

    Does that mean I’ll end the debate by shooting you? Of course not. That’s the great advantage of living in a secular democracy: I’ll sue you, and let the court decide.

    That’s the way a modern civilized country works: you establish the rules of the game through a constitution (or its equivalent), and then you play by the rules. No exceptions. No special pleading. If you can draw a picture of Jesus, I can draw a picture of Mohammad. I you can draw a picture of Buddha, I can draw a picture of Mohammad. If you can draw a picture of a brain, I can draw a picture of Mohammad. See how it works? The fundamental principle of a civilized secular society is this: you can do whatever you want, as long as it does not prevent me from doing whatever I want. You can see that the fundamental freedom at stake is the freedom to do something, not the freedom to feel or think something. If I tell you that you look like a turd, you are free to tell me that I look like puke. You are not free to prevent me from expressing my opinion, however unpalatable you may find it. Capisci?

  15. Moe says

    Dear Piero: While I can see that you are trying to make an effort at presenting an argument, the fact that you still used precious blog space to write about your self-perceived (and sadly self-assessed) superior genome configuration means that you are still not ready to debate – i.e. I will be wasting my time (more than I already have) in trying to articulate higher-level thoughts that will be deflected away by calling me a moron or subhuman etc. Why would anyone want to converse with you? Even if you had a point, no one with a reasonable level of intelligence and character will take you seriously. Yes, the way you say things matters, your personality matters, your manners matter. Sadly, you have a child who will inherit from you your love for argumentation along with your lack of charisma – and will concurrently also lack any other quality that is needed to persuade others of your evidence based (I’m being sarcastic) secularist principles.

    I have created a new word Pieroism: a person or group exhibiting a combination of narcissism and hubris often leading any dialogue to be instantly turned into an ideological, mental or spiritual graveyard. Also, activity which leads others to mock those presenting with symptoms of Piero.

    Used in a sentence: The Pieroism in the comment board for Maryam Namazie’s blog made Moe sad and led her to seek comfort in brownies. :09

    I have work to do since I am but a young student. However, I feel inspired to have a disciplined debate in the future with more Winterwinds and less Pieros of the world. I wish you all more ethical and respectful discussions in the future. Moe

    (PS Piero – Nice to know that at least you are not thinking of shooting or hurting anyone.)

    • LeetheGirl says

      Young student, I believe that, yes. You seem educated but not quite done yet.

      For example you, like several others I suppose, remark on how some people are wasting their time and space on the internet while you do the exact same thing.

      And the funniest part is that I know you’ll be back again.

      What you think that your imaginary sky fairy makes the words you post here more valuable than anyone else’s? Especially when you’re doing the exact thing you’re accusing the others of doing: making a ‘defense’ by calling them idiots and not actually pointing out anything useful or factual.

      And while that may indeed be a fun activity it is, ultimately, the biggest waste of time and space there is.

    • piero says


      Most of what you said in your post is true: as I’ve admitted myself, I’m arrogant and don’t suffer fools gladly. That makes me less than charismatic or even agreeable. Thank you for bestowing upon me the honour of coining a new word in my name, but I sadly must decline: there are more worthy candidates. For example, those who claim to speak in the name of Allah. If you want arrogance, that’s hard to beat. I’m sure you are familiar with this quotation:

      And do you think that unto such as you;
      A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
      God gave the secret, and denied it me?–
      Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too

  16. StopSpamming says

    Hamza Tzortzis is a primitive wannabe William Lane Craig, and copies him wherever possible and somehow considers himself an intellectual.
    I have analysed and killed his childish “arguments” repeatedly.
    His fan-boys cheer him on and think they have found a high-level representative for Muslims.
    He takes himself far too serious and thinks that his name-dropping will get him recognition for something he does not have: a presence and intellectually sound arguments.
    But it is fun wasting time on him and watching the nervous reaction of him and his claqueurs.
    Debating him is only another feather in his cap or a notch in his Koran, so I applaud the decision not to acknowledge his taunts.

    • piero says

      Hamza Tzotrtzis is an idiot; Maryam is one of my heroes. Who would gain anything from such a debate? Hamza, of course, even if Maryian mopped the floor with him. Debating Maryam would be, as you said, a feather in Hamza’s cap. In my humble opinion, the best strategy with such morons is to ignore them: no press, no YouTube videos, no blogs about the debate. Force them to disappear from the public eye until they become completely irrelevant and forgettable.

    • yessir says

      if by copying craig you mean the “kalamist” argument then I suggest you do some research, kalam is an arabic word and a branch of islamic knowledge.

  17. Chuck says

    Hey guys,

    I would strongly disagree with my fellow atheists regarding the action that pervez hoodbhoy took by walking out of the debate. Hamza, adnan rashid and the rest of iera uk are aggressive faith merchants feeding on the problems of society for a utopian worldview. This is the same nonsense you hear from the far left in america (communists and such) that we need to create a workers paradise. Hamza employs all the arguments from the left wing regarding capitalism and all the arguments for god from william lane craig. Be alert for the future for they will not stop this campaign for islam which will eventually lead pakistan to an islamofascist state which in turn will bring the rest of the muslim world back into the hand of a caliph. We should debate them when they ask for it and remain calm. Secular Spirituality trumps islamic spirituality.


    • Moose says

      hell yeah thats exactly where its headed. There is no power except in Islam and it will be victorious, while you watch it miserable burning on the inside.

  18. says

    Oh please my dear fellow friends, why not put forward a challenge to H.Tzortzis to have a public debate? Lol instead of whining all over this blog, you know you and your leaders have lost hence your desperate efforts. Oh and if you do confront Hamza, make sure you know where you stand…….deadly fellow he is 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

      • TROLL :D :D says

        “Lol – he already backed out of a debate with me. So maybe you should tell him”

        LMAO, last I checked on Twitter, it was you who refused his approach in a debate (cop-out).

        I mean, lmao, if Richard Dawkins flinched, then you’d fly, lol. William Lane craig destroyed Hitchens, where do you stand? LMAO

  19. Justwondering says

    I thought i was a kid. Just wondering how old your mental ages are, the amount of biased comments there are from both sides. Just wondering why a 50 year old woman doesn’t have the decency to talk to the person who “cancelled” her debate. Calling the other side an ‘idiot’ how beautifully mature and so full of backed up evidence. I doubt Hamza even knows how much you’ve cried after the cancellation. 😛

  20. andrew says

    First of all, Maryam, you are ignorant, arrogant fool :) Your short article is nothing but frustration driven nonsense. ”Islam and secularism” is correct title, because ”theocracy” is limited word, as all latin root words, to describe something like Islam. West fails in linguistic and every other constraint and true meaning of Islam. Having that said, your 5, 6 unsync sentences obviously tells more about you and your ignorance then on Hamza. Only ridiculous title is title of your scratch. You’re stupid, Maryam. It’s even more sad when we consider that you are grown old in such idiotic fashion. Get a life, miserable fool.

  21. Moose says

    Oh man, people like you are just so hilarious. A postponed date for a debate and you feel like the queen of the world. He wasn’t “bragging” if anything, nobody giving da’wah for the sake of God brags about doing it. They only do it to spread the TRUTH, and if you can’t accept that, which its clear you can’t cause your more concerned trying your hardest to satisfy your ego and prove your some sort of superwoman intellectual, then let it be. Your goals are very simple and shallow, to win a debate by insulting Islam and rejecting the truth through ignorance, while a Muslim’s goal giving da’wah is simple, a true caring for humanity to bring them to the TRUTH. yes the truth, the message of Abraham Moses, Jesus, Joseph, Muhammad and Adam.

    • says

      Yawn. Are you in charge of doing Hamza’s dirty work for him? He can’t debate so he send his lackeys to make it seem like everyone is afraid to debate him. I’m beginning to feel sorry for him. Was his feelings hurt that he couldn’t debate a woman?

      • Juleer says

        There’s a grammatical error in your sentence. It’s “yawns” not “yawn”. And who is it you want to debate?

        • Ryo says

          I am surprised you didn’t make note of an even more obvious grammatical error: “He can’t debate so he send his lackeys to make it seem like everyone is afraid to debate him”- wow, she probably doesn’t know what 3rd person narrative is. And she wants to debate Hamza Tzortzis? Hahaha, please, her inferiority is too great to the point of embarrassment. She envy’s his eloquence and talent.

          • Max says

            So you go on about making grammatical errors but you still make one? “She envy’s his eloquence and talent.” envy’s?

  22. says

    I’ve watch the guy debate before if you can call it that. He basically tries to perfom linguistic acrobatics to get around a point, not a debate at all. His central point once was “if you’re a non-believer you can’t claim objective moral values” and that he has a problem with it. Isn’t that just abhorrent? I also heard him defend stoning women by saying “the punishments are detterants it is almost impossible to be convicted of adultery and warrent stoning as you need 4 pious members to have witnessed it”. Defending the practice is what we have issue with not how likely the conviction is, but like all advocates of a totalitarian, theocratic rule he doesn’t see the need to change those practices. He will merely state that this is the Muslim belief and to follow it would be advantageous to everyone.

    We all know though to presentevidence and facts to someone like this is pointless because they don’t recognise fact unless they believe it and usually only if it backs their belief Therein lies the problem, the adoption of the facts you agree with by Islam as originating from it when actually many of the facts we know today came before Islam could have had any knowledge of them.

    Also I don’t think the argument “God does or does not exist” is an argument we can be preoccupied with in 2012 as grown ups and intellectuals.

  23. Lakhani says

    May Allah give you guidance and may you accept Islam before death approaches you. Your biography has shocked me, supporting gays and lesbians and all that. However, Allah is oft forgiving, provided that you seek forgiveness before your time s up.

    Sister Maryam, if you have any hatred against some muslim or so due to your own personal experience or your personal view, the least you could do is be honest and say that you left islam since it prevented you from doing shameless things or it does not suit your selfish desires.

    Once again sister, I hope that you realize the reality and accept the divine. If the dead could come to live, and they to narrate to you the events to pass, surely the re would be no point of arguing about the eternal truth of Islam. However, this world is a test and the hereafter is for those who seek the truth and adhere to it. So here is a hint from your fellow human, realize your errs.

  24. Piesho says

    “Debates” between rationalists and religious fanatics are useless. They produce nothing of value specially when the fanatics play gotcha games and when rationalist try to convince fanatics that’s there’s not a single shred of rationalism in religion.

    Fanatics should debate other fanatics, that would be at least fun.

  25. Nina says

    Dear Maryam.,
    be rational and not emotional

    Maryam is one of the great women in islam, shes really good and maybe, u can read again on her story. :)

  26. atifqconsultantatif says

    Adding “Namazie” itself is a biggest hypocrisy you doing, so probably your followers even dont know what does it mean…

  27. Nadz says

    Maryam, people like you need to learn to respect and appreciate differences. In your view this guy seems lost but in my view you are the one who needs to start school from nursery and grow some brain cells as you are far lost than him.

  28. says

    LOL. I agree with @Nadz, She does some childish, as what you tell here just makes her thinking more provocative.

    True @Nina, Maryam is the one of greatest names in Islam. The least this woman could do is to just adopt a pagan name if she can’t do justice to the name.

    ‘Maryam Namzie’, the doors of forgiveness is not closed till the day of resurrection. But the more harm you do to your soul, the harder it’s to repent.

Leave a Reply