17 Jul 2002
The following email
was sent to my email address but it is not addressed to me. If someone
knows the person who describes himself as a genius and leader please
advise him to come and pick up his mail and answer this fine
gentleman.
"Riz 2001" <[email protected]>
For the attention of the person who
describes himself as a genius and leader.
I
greet you with the traditional islamic greeting of peace and humility,
Assalamu
Alykum,
The
problem I have with your thesis of rational thinking is that it is too
reliant on stereotyping. This is also displayed in your 'evidence'
it seems that in the Quran -
a book with over six and a half thousand verses - you cannot even muster a
mere one percent or sixty verses pertaining to military conflict. So how
you come to the conclusion that Islam in its totality is violent, is far
from being rational. After viewing your site, I wonder whether even the
public relations people belonging to Bin Laden's of the world could have
made such a strong case for their actions.
I say this because in an interview (after Sept 11 with a Pakistani
journalist) even Bin Laden stated that killing was a matter of
jurisprudence of which he takes a particular view - whereas you try to
prove conclusively that Islam sanctions violence.
In
relation to Sept 11 there are NO VERSES in the Quran that say you can kill
yourself—for any reason. Personally
I was appalled by the terrorist attack, the people in those buildings were
earning a livelihood for their families and were in no was connected to
he US decision-making process - including hundreds of Muslims. Yet, I am
surprised as to why you regard the lives of 3000 Americans more valuable
han those of the over 8000 Muslims massacred in Srebrenica of former
Yugoslavia in 95. But Muslims realise that this is in no way connected to
orthodox Christianity, and you will not find any Muslim trying to prove
other wise. Why is there no mention of the thousands killed there or in
Chechnya or Kashmir? If you were genuinely concerned by the welfare of
human beings, these problems would’ve also been addressed. Islam had
nothing to do with any of the world wars or the production of the Hydrogen
or Nuclear bombs – Many of the current conflicts in the Muslims lands
are civil wars, or are
undertaken to become free from occupation.
Many
western historians of Islam, have argued that for much of history
religious minorities did better under Muslim rulers than they did under
Christian ones. All that has changed in the past few decades. So surely
he relevant question we must ask is, why are we in a particularly
difficult phase right now? Why cannot people see that people like Saddam
and bin Laden are products of US foreign policy and NOT Islam. Why does
he US fail to encourage liberalisation of arab countries..... Because its
bad for business? I think
your answer lies in the contemporary politics rather than in the Quran
revealed over a millennia ago. Your interpreting the Quran has more to do
with political grievances than genuine scholarship. The Quran is a vast
book filled with poetry and like the Bible contains contradictions (in
hese sense that) in these scriptures you can find condemnations of war
and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern
strictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more
about the person who selected the passages than about Islam.
I present just a few examples of the contexts which were
conveniently forgotten to be included by yourself - I guarantee that these
contexts be juxtaposed along with the relating verses, it would bring a
much needed air of reasoned debate to your site rather than an attack on
Islam, but doing so would probably kill the aim of your venture. I will
not address each of the verses because in all honesty. I do not have the
ime, neither do I have any faith in honouring your promise of removing
he website, if you are sincere then do a little more research into the
varying contexts and scenarios that these verses were meant to address,
and display them next to your other opinions.
verses
pretaining to women being 'stupid' and the witness of 2 women being equal
o one man - these are relating to financial transactions ONLY, at a time
where there was a huge gulf between the education of the different sexes,
but of course you may prove me wrong by providing an example from the time
of the prophet in which this rule is applied to a non-financial case and
had the prophets approval.
verses
you highlighted in relation to justifying violence - i.e 3.149 ' We will
put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers' was revealed afore the
battle of Uhud, of which you are probably aware the opposing force was
bigger numerically and in armoury and weapons, these verses were to assure
he prophet who would've been questioning the outcome of the battle. So it
was not (as you try to project - a green light for suicide bombers) but to
allay the fears of the prophet and encourage faith in Allah.
For
example c4v3 You claim Muhammad gave license to sleep with their slave
maids and as many 'captive' women as they may have. When earlier on in the
same verse the subject in context is that of marriage, it is OBVIOUSLY an
injunction pertaining to marriage. Then why you insinuate that this is in
relating casual sex is simply a fallacy.
There
is a very simple formula in Islam - Islam does not forbid something that
is inherently good and pious - conversely Islam does not allow something
hat is sinful or leads to sin.
In
relation to this I would care to address the other 'discovery' unearthed
by yourself included the 'prohibition' of adoption. At the time of the
prophet, adopting a child AND imposing your family name upon this child
was forbidden. Not the act itself, but the cultural practise that was rife
in Arabia at that time, which was to usurp the inheritance of orphans
before they reached their age of maturity. Adopting a child and enforcing
a new family name upon him contributed to erasing the lineage of that
child. There are many verses in the quran relating to treating orphans
kindly, and theses repetitive commands are an indication as to the gravity
of the problem in Arabia in that era.
Secondly,
you claim that another sign of the barbarity of Islam is the legal ruling
of apostates to be put to death. I would care to explain that Shariah,
which you may not know, is a human construction. Therefore the
understanding of these laws i.e Fiqh
was done in the context of that particular time. Now this rule pretaining
o the apostates was done during the Abbasid period where the muslim
empire was in its expansionist phase, and the fiqh became incorporated the
logic of Muslim imperialism of that time. It has nothing to do with the
prophet or the quran. But of course you will again probably prove me wrong
by giving an example of the time of the prophet where he sanctioned the
stoning of an apostate.
Finally,
your most vicious attack on the prophet himself claiming he was a
peadophile .................... Isn’t it strange that this practise of
he prophet rather than scaring and emotionally disturbing A'isha for the
rest of her life, becoming a nervous wreck or displaying other types of
abnormal behaviour in her adult life as a sypmtom of the 'abuse' she
endured - Conversely she went on to be a woman who lead Muslim armies in
battle, became a foremost narrator of hadith and scholar. She is regarded
as one of the four greatest females in history. Through A'isha many of the
issues relating to the cleanliness of women (menses,pregnancy, etc) were
relayed to the prophet by her as she was growing through the changes
herself, and in turn revelations would be sent down in answer to these
issues. The father of Aisha was Abu Bakr, a lifetime long friend of the
prophet - I am sure that if this custom was taboo, or were she to come to
any harm he would have objected - as any father would.
My
friend every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of
humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported
inquisitions and anti-Semitism. Even today in Spanish churches you find
statues of the apostle James being glorified as a moor slayer, and you
have Priests indicted by the War crimes tribunal for their role in the
genocide of Rwanda, BUT Christianity also contributed to abolition of
commercial slavery, human rights and social welfare. Islam at the time of
he prophet was politically democratic, and accepted multiculturalism - In
he quran you will not find an attack on another religious faith, you may
find the condemnation of the actions of a religious group.
One
of the most striking and transparent comment of your comes from your
correspondance with a Jin Rea - in which you state that 'We don't see
hindus abusing the rights of muslims in India' This to me is the most
clearest statement from yourself confirming that you firstly are
completely indifferent to muslim suffering (and you contradict yourself
when you state otherwise) and secondly illustrates the prospective in
which you view current worldy affairs.
Finally,
I am not a religious person but I find your site very offensive and also
am very sad to the fact that you come from a muslim country, but
historically the destruction of Muslims has been down to infighting and
raitors amongst their midst. And to this day we have people amongst us
willing to win the favour of the old territorial colonialist, seems this
practise has continued to the modern day financial colonialists.
May
Allah be with you |