Comments
Response to Ali Sina’s essay "Slaying
Islam”
by Isafarb
17 Apr 2001
I have read several articles by Sina and unfortunately every
time I read them I am angered by his vitriolic language which is
a reflection of his fanatical mindset. I use the term fanatic
deliberately with regard to Sina as he as donned the same garb,
and has the same ends in mind, of those he claims to be fighting
- hatred and destruction. The fact that he has targeted a
religion to his fanatical zeal, and not the practitioners, as he
claims, in no way differentiates him from his fanatical muslim
brethren who target other religions or Western ideology upon
which to vent their frustration as unrealized human beings. The
word fanatic as explained by the dictionary means
“unreasonably enthusiastic; overly zealous”; and fanaticism
as “excessive and unreasonable zeal”.
In order to place my response in the perspective from which
it is written I shall say that I am writing from outside the
boundaries of religion in general, and Islam in particular. I
was born into a muslim family and raised in an extremely liberal
muslim environment and my movement away from religion was a slow
and thoughtful process - no dramatic conversion from any fire
and brimstone event. There are several tenets which I have still
not resolved because of lack of knowledge on which to assess my
judgment. I think that reserving the right to pass judgment on
an issue until all the facts have been adequately analyzed is
the basis of critical thinking which leads to enlightenment.
Again I am using the language of religion in order to point out
how profoundly we are affected by religion and its language
because it speaks to a deeply felt longing that all human beings
share. Knowing that religion can no longer adequately address
that longing comes only after one has cultured an ability to
view religious doctrine in a dispassionate and scholarly manner.
That is the enlightenment of which I speak.
Ali Sina’s language and manner are neither scholarly nor
enlightened. He certainly has acquired the requisite knowledge
upon which to base his judgments and could quote chapter and
verse on behalf of his stand, but it is his evaluation and his
goals that I find very disturbing and am questioning. Firstly my
critique of his mindset can be based purely on his semantics.
Some examples of his language in describing a muslim :
"You cannot win a Muslim’s heart by love. Once a
person becomes a Muslim he losses his humanity; his reason is
gone; his sense of justice is vanished; his heart becomes full
of hate. He thinks of killing unbelievers; he despises people
who are not muslims and hate consumes his being."
What an all encompassing generalization on the same
dangerously bigoted lines as the the Nazi’s justification for
exterminating the Jews - give a race or religion enough negative
connotations by the intelligentsia and the thugs who adopt a
simplistic aspect of that ideology will carry it through to its
logical end.
And also:
"Then look at those who are still caught in the claws of
this satanic cult. [Islam] See how they spew their venom at
everybody. If we get rid of Islam we get rid of our hate against
each other and we can build a new hate-free world
together."
How does Sina propose to bring about this ideal “hate-free
world”?
"Islam is a disease that destroys everything... We are
going to eradicate this deadly disease. We will destroy Islam...
we have to kill islam. We have to aim our darts at the heart of
Islam. We have to attack Muhammad and destroy the credibility of
the Quran."
How may I ask is this language and its aims different from
the bible bashing of priests sermonizing from their pulpits, or
Khomeini's rhetoric about America as the Great Satan, or the
Taliban’s rallying call to fight in the Jihad against the
infidels of the West. [Especially America, because these
dogmatists instinctively know that American ideology, at least
fundamentally, is antithetical to all strains of fanaticism.]
It is language that is unworthy of a scholar. One could of
course ignore Sina’s verbiage and defend the underlying
principle that calls for such measures to counter the growing
spread of violence in fundamentalist religions everywhere, Islam
being the most prominent. But Sina’s attack is specifically
aimed at Islam and not the problem of why people believe in
religion and the motivation behind imposing those beliefs at the
point of a gun. I will also concede that it does befall those
who are Muslim scholars to reveal the historical accuracy of the
origins of Islam and the authentic character of Muhammad in
order for other Muslims to view such research as unbiased by
ulterior motives. However Ali Sina has elevated his research to
the status of a belief system on par with the very cultism he is
denouncing and his diatribe into prophetic doomsday predictions
or naive idealistic visions of his utopia.
"Now we know what to do. We are going to eradicate this
deadly disease. We will destroy Islam. Taslima Nasrin said that
fundamentalism is a poisonous branch shooting from the trunk of
Islam. Until the trunk of Islam is alive it will keep growing
poisonous branches. [this is ?] The solution is [?] to it. You
fight against fundamentalism in one place and ten more
fundamentalist and terrorist movements shoot out in other
places. The world must realize that Islam IS fundamentalism. You
cannot fight against Islamic fundamentalism without fighting
against Islam itself."
Therefore according to Sina one has to completely destroy
Islam in order for peace, love and tolerance to be a viable
option in the world. He belongs to that breed of intellectuals
who have repeatedly, throughout history, espoused the slogan -
the end justifies the means. What bloody atrocities have been
committed in the name of that slogan, and examine those who have
adopted that slogan in defense of their ideology. All religions
in defense of their massacres of the unbelievers, dictators in
consolidating their power and communists in expanding their
hegemony - to name only a few prototypes. Of course Sina says he
does not want to physically slay his dragon but only to act as
the heroic knight who frees the victims of this “monster” by
showing them the way out of the dragon’s lair. Once it is
pointed out that the victims of Islam have merely been deluded
into accepting their erroneous beliefs by a demonic figure who
created his evil cult in order to perpetuate his mastery over
them - all these misguided souls will cry halleluiah and say
they have finally seen the light and would be ashamed even to
admit that they once called themselves muslims. That is naive
idealism to a point of ludicrousy combined with a lack of
psychological insight into the motives of most people who follow
one religion or another.
Christianity has been and still is in the process of being
examined quite microscopically. The Bible has and is being
subjected to all kinds of analysis as to historical authenticity
and how much of its content is viable fact. It is also being
examined from a philological and hermeneutic standpoint in
regard to the the art of storytelling where myth and legend
portray fundamental human values rather than accurate historical
fact that modern man places so much of an emphasis on, perhaps
to his emotional detriment. Nevertheless people continue to have
faith in the Bible, perhaps not so much as the immutable word of
God any longer but as an instrument that conveys his spirit. One
may erode or shatter a persons belief with knowledge to the
contrary, but faith does not need knowledge. A “leap” of
faith is how it is referred to and it is by nature blind.
Religion, or rather the religious feeling, is a means to fill
the emptiness of perpetual longing that every individual feels.
So for Sina to think that simply in revealing the history of
Islam or the contradictions of the Quran he is going to
instantaneously make people see the light, and topple all
irrationality in all religions boggles the mind as to his
intellectual ability and insight. He is wrong on two counts:
first his statement that in questioning Islam, and revealing its
inconsistencies, it will pave the way for people of other faiths
to question their supposed divine revelations - they have been
doing so for many years now, Islam is the only mainstream
religion that has not been placed under the same kind of
scrutiny until now; and secondly in portraying Islam as a
“beast” which can be slayed by revealing it “errors” and
“absurdities”, and Sina’s subsequent derogatory evaluation
of those factual inaccuracies, as all that is necessary to make
unbelievers of all.
"We have to attack our enemy from two fronts. One is
Muhammad himself, his immoral character is an eloquent proof
that this man could not possibly qualify to be a messenger of
God. The second front is the Quran. We have to make everyone see
the errors and the absurdities of this book. Once this
ideological revolution take[s] place among muslims, the effects
of that will reverberate in other parts of the world and the
thinkers of other religions will see the absurdities of their
own Faiths and will come down hard at the irrational beliefs of
their own fathers."
I also question Ali Sina’s assessment of Muhammad. How does
one “qualify” to be a messenger of God? Sina’s implication
in that statement, and others he has made in the same vein, is
that there is a certain, perhaps unspoken, standard for a
messenger of God which Muhammad, in a historical light,
violates. Therefore Muhammad is a demonic cult leader posing as
a false prophet leading people on a path of damnation. Sina is
again inverting one irrational belief into another. From a
divine messenger of God we have a satanic monster. Where is the
humanistic evaluation of a real historical figure that is the
purpose of scholarly research to reveal? How about an extremely
clever man who had a strong and charismatic enough personality
to found a new faith and consolidate its basis to make it spread
and grow as a dominant force in the world. He used whatever
means that would justify his ends. Much as other historically
dominant figures have throughout history - Genghis Khan,
Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler et all. What differentiates
them from Muhammad is that he based his justification to conquer
and dominate man upon God and a new religion. It is an act of
supreme virtuosity that he was one of the few historical
predators who unleashed the power of men’s longing for a
belief in certainty into a creed for dominance. We can condemn
his intentions and actions on moral ground, once all the
relevant facts have been revealed, but to turn him into a
supernatural being - either good or bad is what needs to be got
away from.
Sina states that all other religions except Islam are
tolerant of faiths other than theirs. That when one abandons
Islam one automatically loves and respects the people of other
beliefs. That, as I do not claim be a scholar yet, is complete
hogwash. He need only read history or look around the world to
see that the majority of the world religions have persecuted the
“other”, as Sartre would say. Most wars have at their base
some sort of purported religious conviction at stake.
It seems that Sina’s fight against Islam is based on
nationalistic motives. He wants to liberate Iran from the grip
of islamic dogmatism. He wants to see the creation of his vision
of Utopia replace the existing status quo in Iran. He thinks he
can achieve this renaissance within thirty years. How is this to
be achieved? By peaceful means and with scholarly research. Once
all these books refuting the divine origin of Islam etc. are
published, thereby freeing Iran from the tentacles of islam,
debate will reign amongst all Islamic theologians, dictatorships
will topple, progress of un-islamic countries will compel
islamic counties to adopt the same progressive ideology (as
though these countries are doing so now!) and the “majestic
architecture” of Iran (which is mainly islamic ironically)
will be placed in the service of knowledge and art. This “new
age of enlightenment” will “ease the tension between Muslims
and the rest of the world and establish universal peace on this
planet”. ( What Muslims? - I thought that any remaining ones
would be too ashamed to declare themselves as so)
I don’t think I lack imagination or vision, but for me to
take any of Sina’s visions without not just one but many
grains of salt would be just as naive as his assertions and
fantasies and worse still imply compliance with both his means
and his end. He states that his means for converting the islamic
world are to be peaceful then why the marital tone of his
language? Language that is specifically aimed at inflaming the
emotion. And if I can react in this way, where my desire is to
view the construction of a rational framework for historical /
religious discourse what about people who are committed heart,
mind, body and soul to Islam, which is the overwhelming majority
of Muslims. Is it possible to present historical facts together
with derogatory valuation and denunciating rhetoric for your
message to be taken seriously by those who you claim you want to
convert? I think it would have the opposite effect and reinforce
those same doctrines and people will rise up to defend their
cherished beliefs to the death if they feel it is threatened by
merely sacrilegious motives.
If Ali Sina wants to be regarded as an Islamic scholar worthy
of such a title he needs to change his mindset. But I think his
concern is predominately the battle of winning back Iran rather
than contributing to an impartial redemption of historical
facts. He uses historical data and couples it with inflammatory
language to further his agenda of overthrowing the Islamic
government of Iran. To say that this will be achieved by
peaceful means when his whole stance is so blatantly bent on
combat and destruction is either an innocent naiveté, of which
I do not think Sina is guilty, or he uses such language with the
deliberate attempt to inflame emotions in order for chaos to
rein. The confusion of deliberate chaos, and the opportunities
it affords for the assumption of power, has been the playground
of all intellectuals bent on fostering bloody revolutions.
I am not quite sure how the issue of Gandhi and the creation
of Pakistan logically ties in with the basic premise that Islam
is a religion that is full of hatred and must be destroyed at
all cost. I suppose Sina wanted to use Gandhi as the symbol, in
the essay, as the peaceful means by which he says he wants to
achieve that end, and Pakistan as an example of Islamic
intolerance. Just critiquing the essay on form alone I would say
that his conclusions do not logically follow from his premises,
and therefore his arguments remain unconvincing. He also has his
historical facts wrong again. Jinnah was not Islamic in the
least and used Islam merely for political ends in creating
Pakistan. Pakistan was created, at least theorically, as a safe
haven for muslims, and where religion and state were to be kept
democratically seperate. So Sina, in donning the title of muslim
intellectual, should at least research his subject matter more
before writng about it. It is really only his language and
evaluations that shock the reader into a response. Though I will
admit that I have learnt much about Islamic history from some of
Sina’s previous work, this essay however does not even merit
that citation.
My point, in this lengthy response, is a note of warning. In
order to refute the basic tenets upon which a religion is
founded one must not resort to the same intransigent position as
the fanatics that espouse them. I think the staunchest
dogmatists are usually recently turned atheists coming from a
fairly strict religious background. They have the same close
minded, bigoted and biased judgment about their point of view as
do believers brandishing a sword. They simply switch from one
form of extremism to another - the coin remains the same however
you may toss it and which ever face you view. There must be,
especially among the intellectuals working on this problem, an
impartial perspective from which to soundly present history and
interpret texts and people in a holistic manner; and not use
disconnected events and writings simply to condone their
psychological perspectives. Of course evaluation of that data
cannot help but be colored by the in-built prejudices of the
observer - that is something science recognizes and takes into
account. In the same manner as scientists impartially evaluating
data that presents itself for their hypothesis, so must these
new Islamic historians use the same intellectual honesty and
rigour in their checks and balances to control for inherent
prejudice. I am neither suggesting an amoral tolerance of
destructive elements or that there be no synthesis and
postulation of counter theories in light of new knowledge. I am
simply appealing in the name of that pleasure that is derived
from reading or listening to a sane, rational and undeniably
lucid thesis that elevates and transforms the listeners to a
level of human dignity that no amount of emotional proselytizing
can ever compare with.
A Response to Isafarb's comment
By: Aparthib
- Date:
- 18 Apr 2001
This is in response to Isafarb's critique of Sina dated 17
Apr 2001 Time: 02:03:28 :
Well Mr. Isafarb, all your verbose critique of Dr. Sina can
be summarized as:
- Mr. Sina may have a point but his language was very harsh
and wrong like calling for an attack on Islam etc.
- His writings are not scholarly
- His vitriolic criticism of Islam rather than Islamic
extremist is going to create further hatred among Islamic
believers.
- His views are as fanatic as as the religious fanatic
itslef, hence there is no difference between the two and
even Nazism.
- The main agenda of Sina is to liberate Iran.
All that you have said boils down to one of the above five,
you have said nothing beyond that. All of the above was your
judgement on Sina rather than a refutation of his points and
views. So where do you stand? Are you with the religious
fanatics? Yes/No? If yes, then no comments. But if No then what
is of real concern to you? The acts of religious extremists
(that hurts in a tangible way) or the manner/language of Mr
Sina's critique of religious extremism and his contention that
such extremism is rooted in Islam itself (That doesn't hurt
anyone in any tangible way) ? Seems like to you the bigger
concern are the likes of Mr. Sina who are vociferously opposing
religious fundamentalism. If you shared that concern then you
could have at least suggested better ways and constructive
criticisms to Mr. Sina instead of such vitriolic castigation of
Sina's article. Whose hand are you strengthening? Whose side are
you on? Is the language of his expression that much of a big
deal if the message is right? Is the "HOW" part more
important than "WHAT" part? Besides, before
"equating" his passionate opposition to Islamic
extremism with fanaticism have you considered the fact that his
call is not for chopping anyone's head or issuing life threats
unlike the religious fanatics? Where is the fairness in this
equation? You don't see the action-reaction, cause/effect
duality in all these. Religious fanaticism is the cause/action.
Secularism (including Sina's vociferous version that you call
fanaticism) is the effect/reaction. How can a reaction to a
fanaticism be a fanaticism. That's a logical absurdity. His
expressions are hyperbolic at best reflecting the urgency of the
problem and can never be taken literally. How can one
"KILL" Islam? He proposes to kill it by
exposing/debunking the flaws/inconsistencies in Islam through
expressions. Such exposition has already disillusioned many
former blind faith holders in Islam. This is what he means by
"KILL". Does that bother you? Then you are sure
revealing your true affiliations. All religions share some
common spirituality that is part of being human. We all wonder
about the root cause of creation (Call it God), possible life
after death etc. His "Kill" did not aim at such
harmless spiritual yearning. Buddhists, Shamans, Hindus,
Muslims, Christians, Jews etc all share that harmless spiritual
part of religion. That can hardly be a matter of concern to Sina
or any secularist. It is the rigid dogma of the revelations that
incite its followers to kill/control dissenters, women for
exercising their basic human rights that is the real concern. No
other religion TODAY poses such threat to individual right and
freedom as does Islam. So his passionate opposition to Islam,
not for its spiritual belief in God, heaven, hell etc but for
its coercive preaching and exhortations. If one could kill the
coercive parts leaving only the innocuous spiritual part then
all the power to him as unrealistic as it is. But the best one
could do ids to expose the flaws and objectionable parts of the
revelations and scriptures so the fence sitting believers can be
disillusioned about the pretentious claim of the religious
apologetics about the lofty nature of Islam. That is what he
meant by "KILLING" Islam. After that killing the
peaceful believers can still derive spiritual strength from
reciting its verses, like the devotees of all religion do from
chanting mantras etc, without the baggage of any threat to
non-believers or dissenters. Mr. Sina or any secularist will not
have any problem with such peaceful and private quest of
spirituality, be it via Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,
Shamanism, or even Voodooism, no matter how illogical all these
religions seem to them from an informed scientific perspective
Aparthib
- Date:
- 19 Apr 2001
BY:Isafarb
Replying to Aparthib
I repeat - the end does not justify the means. All of the
points you have raised and are questioning I have answered in my
article if you would read it in a more temperate state of mind.
I have clearly defined my position, there are no hidden
agendas. You seem to think there are two basic positions -
either one is for fundamentalism, explicitly or implicitly, or
against. And in my critiquing the ones who clearly seem to stand
in opposition I am implicating myself on the side of the
fundamentalists - I am strengthening their hand as you put it.
Firstly I don't think they need any help from me; and secondly
one does not have to stoop to the level of the fundamentalists
in order to fight them. There is another option. I have also
stated that already. It is an unbiased, rational and holistic
interpretation of history which in its authenticity is hard for
anyone to intellectually refute. It can obviously be emotionally
refuted by people with strong religious belief, but not
rationally. It in no way relies on its affect by appeal to
emotions, that is the arena of faith. One has to extricate
oneself from that foundation in order to effectively combat
irrationality of all kinds.
I agree with your evaluation that Sina is a reaction to
fundamentalism. I have stated that previously as well. It is his
kind of reaction that is the whole point. To be a reaction to a
spirit-cripplingly harmful cause is not necessarily a wholesome
thing. One can simply invert the values learned and rebroadcast
them. One can see that example in children raised in
dysfunctional families. They transmit their value system,
wittingly or unwittingly to their children. It has nothing to do
with logic, absurd or otherwise, that like begets like. My
strong critique of Ali Sina is that he should know better. He is
obviously a highly learned man, and his knowledge can greatly
benefit the cause against fundamentalism. But the
"How" is as important as the "Why".
Words are symbols for our thoughts. The kinds of words we use
and their connotations and implications reflect our mind-set.
Sina is not advocating physical violence as such but in using
inflammatory language against those who are, he is inciting its
use. Fundamentalism cannot be fought on its own grounds without
violence. Knowledge, and subsequent enlightenment, is a long and
slow process. It cannot be performed overnight especially
against those who have closed their minds. Just try to tell a
mullah or a peasant in Peshawar or Afghanistan, which make up
the majority of the Taliban, that Muhammad was a demonic cult
figure and the Quran a hoax, with Sina's added passionate
adjectives as you call it, and I'd like to see how long it takes
to turn that creature into a violent lunatic.
Fundamentalism cannot be killed by facts and the tenacity of
the religious need cannot even be liberated by knowledge right
away. But one can appeal to the rational human being who is
intellectually honest via his need to know the truth at all
cost. One must appeal in a sane and unbiased manner to be
effective. The educated youth especially are starved for things
that make sense. If one is able to effectively spark a question
mark in a person's previous belief system that will spread the
seeds for an open attitude in a quest to learn. That is the only
way a religion can be effectively rendered impotent. It is not
easy and it is not quick. In today's age of mass information it
will hopefully be quicker for Islam than the dark ages of other
religions. Sina has the requisite knowledge to help achieve
those ends but not the right attitude or aim. It actually
hinders the process of constructing a framework in which
rational discourse can occur.
Isafarb
- Date:
- 19 Apr 2001
By: Aparthib
Replying to Isafarb:
Most of you of what you are saying are simple proselytizing
with trite imperatives that do not provide any cogent ground for
the acerbity with which you are lashing out at Sina.
Your precept "one does not have to stoop to the level of
the fundamentalists in order to fight them" is being
followed to the letter by Sina. He didn't stoop to the level of
the fundamentalists by calling for anyone's decapitation or
issuing fatwa, death threats, planning bomb attacks etc. He is
using only pen. I am wondering how Mr. Sina by just simply using
pen, not calling for any violence, not presenting any
misinformation (You haven't refuted any misinformation in Sina's
article) could provoke so much ire in you.
Your comment about "It is an unbiased, rational and
holistic interpretation of history which in its authenticity is
hard for anyone to intellectually refute". Now who can deny
this trite precept? But what relevance does this have in the
present context of your lashing out at Sina? Either you point
out with sound argument where and how exactly he was biased,
irrational or un-holistic (whatever that means to you), or it is
a totally irrelevant precept for you to invoke in this context.
So is the "the end does not justify the means"
precept, how is that relevant here? What was his means anyway?
Few words of hyperbolic expressions renders the remaining
thousands of lines of facts and critical analyses unworthy as
means ?
You say "To be a reaction to a spirit-cripplingly
harmful cause is not necessarily a wholesome thing." So by
your logic any Palestinian "reaction" to a
"spirit-crippling" occupation of Israelis of their
land is also not wholesome? What is the basis of your imposing
on Sina this absurdly extreme standard of puritanical
cleanliness of expression. Can he not use any hyperbolic
language at all here and there to reflect his sense of passion
for a justified (And you seem to agree the end is justified)
cause? He is not writing a PhD thesis. he is writing to ordinary
folks and he needs to use ordinary language as well that most
folks use themselves and understand. Using some expletives on
top of hard logic does not diminish the logic part. And it is
the logic and the content which should matter to anyone. Anyone
who sees the expletives only, is only proving to be shallow and
disingenuous. Your obsessed and prudish insistence on using
academic language for an intellectual fight against fanaticism
seems to indicate that it is a far more pressing issue than that
of fanaticism itself. You seem to channeling all your wrath and
passion against Sina's "mode" of delivery of his
message. Why not express some support for his cause if you are
sincere and then as a friend/well-wisher write to him personally
suggesting better mode of delivery instead of trying to demonize
him to all others in this forum.
Your comment "Sina is not advocating physical violence
as such but in using inflammatory language against those who
are, he is inciting its use." is an abject surrender to
evil. Is it at all unexpected that the fundamentalists will be
inflamed by Sina who is opposing them? So why make that an
excuse to criticize his mode of views. Either way they will be
inflamed. It is rather you who seem to be inflamed although you
claim to agree to his message. So why are you concerned at the
prospect of infuriating the fundamentalists ? Just because
fundamentalists will be infuriated so adopt a wimpier language,
like a prudish professor engaged in an uncritical academic
discourse that does not point out any falws of anyone? That
would sure suit the fundamentalists. And also you.
Your comment "Fundamentalism cannot be fought on its own
grounds without violence. Knowledge, and subsequent
enlightenment, is a long and slow process." does not make
any pertinent sense here. Are you suggesting Sina's approach of
using pen is ineffective? Then what good is it for you suggest
to Sina that he use even milder language that will make a
fundamentalist laugh in derision? I am afraid there is hardly
any point after stripping off all your rigmaroles. Your further
comment about the effect of "telling a mullah or a peasant
of Peshawar or Afghanistan" is also misapplied. Mr. Sina is
obviously not targeting them in his website. They hardly have
the means and skill to access internet. He is addressing those
who are educated and claim to know but are stuck in blind faith.
Many of them have the potential of seeing the light of reason
(Even when the reason is adorned with some hyperboles). they can
then take onto themselves the task of enlightening the ordinary
masses in whatever mode they deem proper. All of your lofty
talks of proselytizing about rational discourse, intellectual
honesty, educated youth being starved for things that make sense
etc are fine but has no relevance here. Also your patronizing
exhortation to Sina that he should know better does not add any
substance to your critique of him. Just get out of this
obsession about Sina's inconsequential "HOW" part and
look at the more important issues of the "WHAT" part.
Aparthib
- Date:
- 20 Apr 2001
- Time:
- 03:54:02
Comments
You seem to be missing the boat Aparthib - if you calm down a
bit you might get the point. Time will not allow me to keep
repeating myself. So to you your idols, to me my gods. We
obviously do not worship at the same temple.
Isafarb
|
