What do you think?
Rate this book
Allah Is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
Many analysts have worked on the problem of Islam's political aspects, but few have tackled Islam philosophically as a whole. Rebecca Bynum does that. She discusses Islam and its status in the modern world with a depth and precision missing in many modern accounts and sadly concludes that the great hope of secularizing the Muslim world is a pipe dream. It is much more likely, according to Bynum, that the secular world will be Islamized. Overall, however, her analysis is hopeful and provides an important ideological tool for dealing with Islam which is to reconsider its classification. Bynum maintains Islam s current status as a religion, along with all the other religions of the world, is in error. She refers to Islam as the duck-billed platypus of belief systems and proposes it should be classified accordingly; as the hybrid religio-socio-political belief system it is. She also reminds the Western world about what religion itself actually is, not the caricature modern analysts often mean when they refer to "religious fundamentalisms." Bynum has given policy-makers a powerful tool for dealing with Islam. Let us hope they understand, and grasp, and choose to make use of it.
160 pages, Perfect Paperback
First published February 1, 2011
2 people are currently reading
27 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 12, 2021
Author's understanding of religion philosophy is so poor... I find it hard to understand how this text got published...it seems to be written with a confirmation bias in which shes spewing hate along with seeking wrong information that confirms her prior beliefs about the religion...I would give it a zero star rating if i could
February 18, 2014
Well researched and a thought provoking book
Numerous acts of Islamic terrorism are committed around the globe (see the website, Jihadwatch.com for the details, and many illuminating articles in the daily web newspaper, Frontpagemag.com); many are averted by intelligent agencies and some slip through the net to make the rest of us pay with our lives. Yet the Islamic communities and Islamic countries remain silent about these beastly acts, but after a while they blame United States or Israel. The 9/11 attack on United States is blamed on CIA and Israel, the Islamic rampage that followed the publication of cartoons in an unknown Danish newspaper was blamed on Danish media and Danish government, and the Palestinian terrorism is blamed on Israel. Islamists living in the nook and corner of the planet hate Israel even though they have nothing to do with Israel, geographically, politically or economically. How do they dupe the rest of the world again and again and still continue to prosper in spreading their ideology, and immerse families, neighborhoods and communities in hijab, burqa and sharia culture? The author provides an explanation for this apparent foolishness or more politely called "political correctness." This is a well researched book by an author who has written several articles on the subject in the internet magazine "New English Review."
The author observes that the spiritual vacuum created in the faith is largely due to an absolute and unconditional surrender to the idea that man has to devote himself to Islam and its material aspirations, especially religious sovereignty. The followers have to be relentless in converting all infidels into Islam, and expand its authority until global Islamic Caliphate is established. Anyone leaving Islam into another faith is an act of apostasy which is punished by death. Allah does not respect the free will of man; therefore all three thousand people who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 would have died at that hour regardless. The Islamic terrorists, who perpetrated this act, were only puppets on a stage, obeying the will of Allah. According to Islamic logic, Allah caused it as punishment for our sins, the sins of America as a collective entity
Her book concludes giving the reasons why Islam should not qualify as a religion: it fails to nurture the individual or promote social harmony, among other things. Since people in the West have neglected their own religious traditions for so long, it is assumed that religion itself is unimportant. She suggests that we have to weigh and choose which ethnic group ought to be tolerated in a civil society, and their belief systems must be of utmost concern if one cares about the destiny of humanity. One cannot counter the "God of Fear" with the "God of Nothing."
Numerous acts of Islamic terrorism are committed around the globe (see the website, Jihadwatch.com for the details, and many illuminating articles in the daily web newspaper, Frontpagemag.com); many are averted by intelligent agencies and some slip through the net to make the rest of us pay with our lives. Yet the Islamic communities and Islamic countries remain silent about these beastly acts, but after a while they blame United States or Israel. The 9/11 attack on United States is blamed on CIA and Israel, the Islamic rampage that followed the publication of cartoons in an unknown Danish newspaper was blamed on Danish media and Danish government, and the Palestinian terrorism is blamed on Israel. Islamists living in the nook and corner of the planet hate Israel even though they have nothing to do with Israel, geographically, politically or economically. How do they dupe the rest of the world again and again and still continue to prosper in spreading their ideology, and immerse families, neighborhoods and communities in hijab, burqa and sharia culture? The author provides an explanation for this apparent foolishness or more politely called "political correctness." This is a well researched book by an author who has written several articles on the subject in the internet magazine "New English Review."
The author observes that the spiritual vacuum created in the faith is largely due to an absolute and unconditional surrender to the idea that man has to devote himself to Islam and its material aspirations, especially religious sovereignty. The followers have to be relentless in converting all infidels into Islam, and expand its authority until global Islamic Caliphate is established. Anyone leaving Islam into another faith is an act of apostasy which is punished by death. Allah does not respect the free will of man; therefore all three thousand people who lost their lives on September 11, 2001 would have died at that hour regardless. The Islamic terrorists, who perpetrated this act, were only puppets on a stage, obeying the will of Allah. According to Islamic logic, Allah caused it as punishment for our sins, the sins of America as a collective entity
Her book concludes giving the reasons why Islam should not qualify as a religion: it fails to nurture the individual or promote social harmony, among other things. Since people in the West have neglected their own religious traditions for so long, it is assumed that religion itself is unimportant. She suggests that we have to weigh and choose which ethnic group ought to be tolerated in a civil society, and their belief systems must be of utmost concern if one cares about the destiny of humanity. One cannot counter the "God of Fear" with the "God of Nothing."
November 12, 2021
Rebecca Bynum needs to take a Religion 101 class. Then maybe after that she can learn something about Islam in a few higher-level university religion classes. Or, God forbid, she could step out of her comfort zone and meet a real Muslim face-to-face. I'm sorry this review is so long, but if nothing else, Allah is Dead is certainly thought-provoking. In other news, I have recently decided that "thought-provoking" is not always a compliment.
Bynum's main argument is that Islam should not be considered a religion because it inseperably incorporates "non-religious ideas" as part of its core nature, such as politics. Furthermore, Islam is boiled down solely to its doctrine concerning how one should physically conduct oneself in day-to-day life, and this is somehow presented as proof that Islam isn't a religion, because religion is concerned first and foremost with the inner spirit of the practitioner, according to her. Setting aside any fruitless attempts I might make to convince Bynum or her fans that Islam does possess this inner spiritual dimension in an exceedingly sophisticated form, I will instead focus on wondering what Bynum thinks about other VERY materially-concerned institutions such as the Catholic Church and the distinct political country it operates out of, or perhaps the 613 mizvot of Judaism. Judaism is, of course, lumped in with Christianity as the "good" religions which benefit America/"The West" (interchangeable terms in this book), because all of Bynum's opinions and values read like a parody of right-wing conservative stereotypes, and you can't have that without the sacred worship of "Judeo-Christian values." Getting an agreed-upon definition for this term is an excercise in futility, don't bother. Bynum understands "religion" through a secular Protestant lens, but she is not aware of this lens and accepts the truth of her worldview as evident and without need of scrutiny. Building upon this, she woefully misinterprets and twists the identity of Islam until she can proudly proclaim that it does not, indeed, fit inside of her arbitrary framework, and then insists widespread adoption of her conclusions.
Bynum constantly makes the wildest unfounded claims about Islam without any attempt to explain them - like saying Muslims consider "Jews and other infidels" unclean in the same way urine and feces are unclean. Further statements on Islamic theology are simply baffling and belie Bynum's complete lack of knowledge. I really can't understand how someone could come to certain conclusions like saying Islam exhibits material determinism, nihilism, or even social Darwinism (nevermind that these are somehow claimed as further proof that Islam is not a religion, which they would not be even if they were true/applicable). It would be nice if these beliefs about Islam were supported in the text, but this book is sadly sparse with its citations, the few of which actually provided tend to be quite dodgey as well. The first example of such is an alleged interview of the family of a would-be female suicide bomber. After much effort to track down this interview, I can only conclude that it does not and has not ever existed, with archive resources such as WayBackMachine having snapshots of the original webpage as far back as the day after the interview was (allegedly) published, with naught but an "ItemNotFound" error on the page itself. Similarly, searching keywords from the interview Bynum quotes inevitably only bring me to this book. Her second citation is actually an opinion piece written by a Conservative Rabbi basically saying "Jewish laws are adaptive and interpretative, while Sharia isn't and is just bad." It should be noted that Rabbi Jon Hausman does not and cannot outline what exactly Sharia Law is. Anyway, this was posted on New English Review, an unreliable far-right web journal edited by... Rebecca Bynum!? Oh, you scamp!
Beyond her wildly inaccurate (yet confident) statements about Islam, her attempts at theology and philosophy, even coming from a Christian perspective, are somehow even more embarassing and fumbled. Any argument she makes against Islam could be levied against her dear, precious Judeo-Christian duo as well, but the effort would be fruitless. The few times she lampshades the parallels, she is sure to elaborate on how Christian theologians have come up with conclusions which (thankfully for her) do not clash too heavily with modern liberal sensibilities. Islam is presumed incapable of this, naturally. Impressively, I think she might have even spent more time in this book playing apologetics for Christianity than deconstructing Islam's inherent nonreligiosity and simultaneous incompatibility with the West.
I'm not sure which is more painful: seeing how clear it is that her conclusions were already reached before the writing or research(heh) of this book, or the witnessing of her mental gymnastics as she attempts to mimic a logical thought process arriving at her conclusions. Contradictions abound, including the two assertations that "Islam is a closed system of self-imposed isolation" and "the ummah, or 'community of believers' [...] takes absolute precedence over the individual." Bynum has clearly read some philosophical works, or at least works that strive to be such, as she similarly tries (and fails) to be profound and speak about transcendant topics - such as the degradation of mankind's opinion of their own faculties; no longer are we "filled with tragedy and pathos and consequences eternal," but rather we have become mere biological robots processing sensory inputs. The way she phrases these ideas is competent, but are shown to be vacuous upon closer inspection. Have we really stopped mulling over those great ponderances of the arts and philosophy, Bynum? Or are you just overwhelmed by your traditionalist conservative aching for the illusion of a golden age now long past?
Now putting aside Bynum's best work, let's talk about the worse parts. She spends much of the book's pagetime prattling on about elementary school-esque hottakes passed off as insightful, such as: "freedom of religion should have its limits," "there are elements of faith exhibited in movements such as Communism and Naziism," "religion still has value even if some of its stories probably aren't true," and "maybe murders commit increasingly heinous crimes because of the influence of murderers they've seen on TV"(all paraphrased). All of this is framed within the fantasy world of her imagination, in which there is a significant Muslim lobby for polygamy in the United States, or that the welfare of society is being eroded by "proponents of unlimited mosque construction." Bynum further engages in the propogation of historical fantasy with statements such as "after existing for 2000 years, Judaism became enslaved to tradition and ritual, but in the next 1000 years, it adapted to modern society." Many other claims, not even pertaining to Islam, are blatant lies, easily corrected by a simple Google search, such as "Scientology is not recognized as a religion in every nation."
You might be catching on to the most common theme in Bynum's writing by now, one which she shares with a shockingly large portion of the population, similar to her in their aversion to truth and research: heavy use of loaded words, vague words, and scare words, with no attempt to elaborate on precisely what she means. To be clear, there is no real need for her to clarify what she means, because people of a like mind as her simply know what she means. The presuppositions this text is laden with are accepted as unquestioned truth, such as Islam being anathema to Western Judeo-Christian culture, without any critical eye being turned to said ideas and terms before Bynum so eagerly spews them on to the page.
Bynum has a bone to pick with Islam and nothing will stop her from applying her lens of interpretation onto everything related to the topic. Even simple axiomatic statements uttered by Muslim philosophers such as "truth and falsehood cannot coexist" is interpreted by Bynum to be a scathing condemnation of every non-Islamic culture, which will be annihilated in the wake of Islamic domination. I'm wondering where all this cultural genocide was during the bulk of Islam's premodern history, or how Bynum thinks we superior Westerners got our translated copies of enormously influential acient writings from the Greek and Roman worlds? Nevermind that Bynum and her ilk are, once again, hypocritical, because they find Islam (and Muslims) wrong enough to warrant annihilation in at least some sense of the word.
The entirety of chapter 6 is dedicated to admitting, and then defending, the fact that equality in western society as a farce. This is of course because true equality is unobtainable and anyone who would strive towards it is likely a communist. This shouldn't be surprising considering Bynum's tradcath belief system, nor should it be surprising when she extrapolates this reasoning to damn Islam's many doctrinal attempts toward social equality as anti-modern and evil.
Chapter 7 focuses on the decline of Christianity and the disasterous erosion of Western morality that results from this. This is a theme established earlier in the book, for any concessions Bynum is willing to make about the quality of Western civilization is invariably tied to the "decline of Christianity." What she means by this is of course vague and specific to anything not aligning with her own moral prejudices, rooted in conservo-capitalistic values. A particularly funny paragraph in this chapter bemoans modern man's fondness of seeking things blame for when things go wrong, as if the attempt to identify the causes of problem is some pathological issue we as a global society have fallen victim to. One of the examples is that people seek to blame the 9/11 attacks on people other than the Muslim terrorists themselves, with the clear implication that Bynum does indeed place blame on certain people events - she just has a problem with people being intellectually critical, because it disrupts her preferred narratives.
The final chapter is meant to be the capstone to the ideas she's presented so far, but since none of those were coherent, it should be expected that this conlusion to her thesis "Islam is not a religion" is equally incoherent. She "calls out" politicians for the "two Islams formula," because they act like most Muslims are not violent radicals, while a small subset of extremists fight for the sake of the bad, political Islam. She then proceeds to not substantiate this claim at all. Imagine me saying: "what's 2+2? and don't give me that bullshit orthodox mathemetician answer of 4." Bynum has the mind of a classic conspiracy theorist, in which anywhere she can invent a plausible ulterior motive, that interpretation becomes true to her, regardless of the logistics or whether it actually reflects reality. This is also where she finally lays out her criteria for what a religion must do: "(1) religion must exalt values, (2) advance morality, (3) nurture the individual and help him pursue the higher values, (4) preserve wisdom, (5) foster peace and social harmony, (6) strengthen the family by promoting mutual love and respect between a man and a woman who come together to build a home for their children, and finally (7) religion must hold to the transcendent purpose of reconciling man to a greater reality. It is not worth anyone's time for me to deep-dive into each of these, but as should be obvious now, these are invented criteria which NO scholar of religion nor theologian would ever agree with as appropriate or accurate. But even more baffling is the fact that (despite Bynum's insistence) Islam DOES in fact check off all of these criteria. But there is also the secret eighth criteria snuck into the seventh criteria's first paragraph: (8) religion must always stand apart from the society in which it exists. Once again Bynum unveils her lack of eductation on the topics she's speaking of, as not only would this discount even her precious Christianity from the status of "religion" until the French Revolution, it would be incredibly easy to argue that every religion, especially Christianity, is heavily intwined in the societies it exists in. This is truly the capstone of her ability to produce banal statements which can only sound true when one puts no thought into considering them.
Tragically, much and more could be said about Rebecca Bynum and this book, but I will leave it at this, hopefully having convincingly demonstrated some of the holes in her "arguments" for would-be readers or would-be followers of Bynum's ideological hammer.
Also I cringed at how self-content she must have felt as she typed the book's last words: "Allah is already dead," but perhaps such contempt merely stems from the torture I went through actually reaching the end of this thing.
Bynum's main argument is that Islam should not be considered a religion because it inseperably incorporates "non-religious ideas" as part of its core nature, such as politics. Furthermore, Islam is boiled down solely to its doctrine concerning how one should physically conduct oneself in day-to-day life, and this is somehow presented as proof that Islam isn't a religion, because religion is concerned first and foremost with the inner spirit of the practitioner, according to her. Setting aside any fruitless attempts I might make to convince Bynum or her fans that Islam does possess this inner spiritual dimension in an exceedingly sophisticated form, I will instead focus on wondering what Bynum thinks about other VERY materially-concerned institutions such as the Catholic Church and the distinct political country it operates out of, or perhaps the 613 mizvot of Judaism. Judaism is, of course, lumped in with Christianity as the "good" religions which benefit America/"The West" (interchangeable terms in this book), because all of Bynum's opinions and values read like a parody of right-wing conservative stereotypes, and you can't have that without the sacred worship of "Judeo-Christian values." Getting an agreed-upon definition for this term is an excercise in futility, don't bother. Bynum understands "religion" through a secular Protestant lens, but she is not aware of this lens and accepts the truth of her worldview as evident and without need of scrutiny. Building upon this, she woefully misinterprets and twists the identity of Islam until she can proudly proclaim that it does not, indeed, fit inside of her arbitrary framework, and then insists widespread adoption of her conclusions.
Bynum constantly makes the wildest unfounded claims about Islam without any attempt to explain them - like saying Muslims consider "Jews and other infidels" unclean in the same way urine and feces are unclean. Further statements on Islamic theology are simply baffling and belie Bynum's complete lack of knowledge. I really can't understand how someone could come to certain conclusions like saying Islam exhibits material determinism, nihilism, or even social Darwinism (nevermind that these are somehow claimed as further proof that Islam is not a religion, which they would not be even if they were true/applicable). It would be nice if these beliefs about Islam were supported in the text, but this book is sadly sparse with its citations, the few of which actually provided tend to be quite dodgey as well. The first example of such is an alleged interview of the family of a would-be female suicide bomber. After much effort to track down this interview, I can only conclude that it does not and has not ever existed, with archive resources such as WayBackMachine having snapshots of the original webpage as far back as the day after the interview was (allegedly) published, with naught but an "ItemNotFound" error on the page itself. Similarly, searching keywords from the interview Bynum quotes inevitably only bring me to this book. Her second citation is actually an opinion piece written by a Conservative Rabbi basically saying "Jewish laws are adaptive and interpretative, while Sharia isn't and is just bad." It should be noted that Rabbi Jon Hausman does not and cannot outline what exactly Sharia Law is. Anyway, this was posted on New English Review, an unreliable far-right web journal edited by... Rebecca Bynum!? Oh, you scamp!
Beyond her wildly inaccurate (yet confident) statements about Islam, her attempts at theology and philosophy, even coming from a Christian perspective, are somehow even more embarassing and fumbled. Any argument she makes against Islam could be levied against her dear, precious Judeo-Christian duo as well, but the effort would be fruitless. The few times she lampshades the parallels, she is sure to elaborate on how Christian theologians have come up with conclusions which (thankfully for her) do not clash too heavily with modern liberal sensibilities. Islam is presumed incapable of this, naturally. Impressively, I think she might have even spent more time in this book playing apologetics for Christianity than deconstructing Islam's inherent nonreligiosity and simultaneous incompatibility with the West.
I'm not sure which is more painful: seeing how clear it is that her conclusions were already reached before the writing or research(heh) of this book, or the witnessing of her mental gymnastics as she attempts to mimic a logical thought process arriving at her conclusions. Contradictions abound, including the two assertations that "Islam is a closed system of self-imposed isolation" and "the ummah, or 'community of believers' [...] takes absolute precedence over the individual." Bynum has clearly read some philosophical works, or at least works that strive to be such, as she similarly tries (and fails) to be profound and speak about transcendant topics - such as the degradation of mankind's opinion of their own faculties; no longer are we "filled with tragedy and pathos and consequences eternal," but rather we have become mere biological robots processing sensory inputs. The way she phrases these ideas is competent, but are shown to be vacuous upon closer inspection. Have we really stopped mulling over those great ponderances of the arts and philosophy, Bynum? Or are you just overwhelmed by your traditionalist conservative aching for the illusion of a golden age now long past?
Now putting aside Bynum's best work, let's talk about the worse parts. She spends much of the book's pagetime prattling on about elementary school-esque hottakes passed off as insightful, such as: "freedom of religion should have its limits," "there are elements of faith exhibited in movements such as Communism and Naziism," "religion still has value even if some of its stories probably aren't true," and "maybe murders commit increasingly heinous crimes because of the influence of murderers they've seen on TV"(all paraphrased). All of this is framed within the fantasy world of her imagination, in which there is a significant Muslim lobby for polygamy in the United States, or that the welfare of society is being eroded by "proponents of unlimited mosque construction." Bynum further engages in the propogation of historical fantasy with statements such as "after existing for 2000 years, Judaism became enslaved to tradition and ritual, but in the next 1000 years, it adapted to modern society." Many other claims, not even pertaining to Islam, are blatant lies, easily corrected by a simple Google search, such as "Scientology is not recognized as a religion in every nation."
You might be catching on to the most common theme in Bynum's writing by now, one which she shares with a shockingly large portion of the population, similar to her in their aversion to truth and research: heavy use of loaded words, vague words, and scare words, with no attempt to elaborate on precisely what she means. To be clear, there is no real need for her to clarify what she means, because people of a like mind as her simply know what she means. The presuppositions this text is laden with are accepted as unquestioned truth, such as Islam being anathema to Western Judeo-Christian culture, without any critical eye being turned to said ideas and terms before Bynum so eagerly spews them on to the page.
Bynum has a bone to pick with Islam and nothing will stop her from applying her lens of interpretation onto everything related to the topic. Even simple axiomatic statements uttered by Muslim philosophers such as "truth and falsehood cannot coexist" is interpreted by Bynum to be a scathing condemnation of every non-Islamic culture, which will be annihilated in the wake of Islamic domination. I'm wondering where all this cultural genocide was during the bulk of Islam's premodern history, or how Bynum thinks we superior Westerners got our translated copies of enormously influential acient writings from the Greek and Roman worlds? Nevermind that Bynum and her ilk are, once again, hypocritical, because they find Islam (and Muslims) wrong enough to warrant annihilation in at least some sense of the word.
The entirety of chapter 6 is dedicated to admitting, and then defending, the fact that equality in western society as a farce. This is of course because true equality is unobtainable and anyone who would strive towards it is likely a communist. This shouldn't be surprising considering Bynum's tradcath belief system, nor should it be surprising when she extrapolates this reasoning to damn Islam's many doctrinal attempts toward social equality as anti-modern and evil.
Chapter 7 focuses on the decline of Christianity and the disasterous erosion of Western morality that results from this. This is a theme established earlier in the book, for any concessions Bynum is willing to make about the quality of Western civilization is invariably tied to the "decline of Christianity." What she means by this is of course vague and specific to anything not aligning with her own moral prejudices, rooted in conservo-capitalistic values. A particularly funny paragraph in this chapter bemoans modern man's fondness of seeking things blame for when things go wrong, as if the attempt to identify the causes of problem is some pathological issue we as a global society have fallen victim to. One of the examples is that people seek to blame the 9/11 attacks on people other than the Muslim terrorists themselves, with the clear implication that Bynum does indeed place blame on certain people events - she just has a problem with people being intellectually critical, because it disrupts her preferred narratives.
The final chapter is meant to be the capstone to the ideas she's presented so far, but since none of those were coherent, it should be expected that this conlusion to her thesis "Islam is not a religion" is equally incoherent. She "calls out" politicians for the "two Islams formula," because they act like most Muslims are not violent radicals, while a small subset of extremists fight for the sake of the bad, political Islam. She then proceeds to not substantiate this claim at all. Imagine me saying: "what's 2+2? and don't give me that bullshit orthodox mathemetician answer of 4." Bynum has the mind of a classic conspiracy theorist, in which anywhere she can invent a plausible ulterior motive, that interpretation becomes true to her, regardless of the logistics or whether it actually reflects reality. This is also where she finally lays out her criteria for what a religion must do: "(1) religion must exalt values, (2) advance morality, (3) nurture the individual and help him pursue the higher values, (4) preserve wisdom, (5) foster peace and social harmony, (6) strengthen the family by promoting mutual love and respect between a man and a woman who come together to build a home for their children, and finally (7) religion must hold to the transcendent purpose of reconciling man to a greater reality. It is not worth anyone's time for me to deep-dive into each of these, but as should be obvious now, these are invented criteria which NO scholar of religion nor theologian would ever agree with as appropriate or accurate. But even more baffling is the fact that (despite Bynum's insistence) Islam DOES in fact check off all of these criteria. But there is also the secret eighth criteria snuck into the seventh criteria's first paragraph: (8) religion must always stand apart from the society in which it exists. Once again Bynum unveils her lack of eductation on the topics she's speaking of, as not only would this discount even her precious Christianity from the status of "religion" until the French Revolution, it would be incredibly easy to argue that every religion, especially Christianity, is heavily intwined in the societies it exists in. This is truly the capstone of her ability to produce banal statements which can only sound true when one puts no thought into considering them.
Tragically, much and more could be said about Rebecca Bynum and this book, but I will leave it at this, hopefully having convincingly demonstrated some of the holes in her "arguments" for would-be readers or would-be followers of Bynum's ideological hammer.
Also I cringed at how self-content she must have felt as she typed the book's last words: "Allah is already dead," but perhaps such contempt merely stems from the torture I went through actually reaching the end of this thing.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews