Skip to Content

Search

Home

Response to Mr. Ahmad Ayyad - Part 1

Submitted by admin on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 08:25
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

  <ayyad3112@hotmail.com>

Response to Mr. Ahmad Ayyad"

Hello Mr.Sina, 

I have read through your site, and it is quite interesting. The big amount of dedication and effort you have put into it can be seen clearly. I am sure you're quite a busy man, but I hope you at least find the time to read this some time; ill try to make it as brief as possible.  

I myself believe that everything can be criticized; that is afterall a natural thing that we do everday. I have visited many countries, and have a lot of friends of different cultures and religions, so discussions are usual. I respect their beliefs and criticism, and they respected my defense as well.

Dear Mr. Ahmad Ayyad  

Yes everything can be criticized and argued but at the end the light of the truth will spark by the clashes of opposing ideas. When a person is accused of a crime, naturally his attorneys will defend him and the prosecutor will try to prove his guilt. When everything is said and done the jury will decide, convict or acquit him of the charges. So truth eventually will come out. Truth is not really just a matter of opinion, as you think. These debates we have will help us to come to the truth eventually.    

I also have to make it clear that in this site we do not respect beliefs. In my school of thought no belief is sacrosanct. All beliefs must be scrutinized and if they can’t stand criticism they should be discarded. Humans and their rights are sacrosanct but their beliefs are not. So if you expect respect for your belief, I am afraid you have come to a wrong place.  

Only beliefs that can stand the test of reason should be respected, but then again, once a belief passes that test, it is no more a belief. It becomes fact.

 

I am sure that we can have long debates, but I think there are 2 things to be debated: 

  1. Very essential points in the Qur'an and Hadith, which are so pure and generally  accepted that no one can criticize them. Miracles that are clear, and lessons that are useful and accepted by everyone. Usually the things we forget when we criticize.

First of all I would like to hear about those “pure” parts of the Quran that no one can criticize. Secondly if the Quran was a book revealed by God, it should have no part at all that could be criticized successfully.  

You say miracles are clear. Which miracles? I see no miracles in the Quran. It is a book of nonsense and idiocy, a cogitation of a sick mind. What part of that book is miracle?  

What are the useful lessens of the Quran? There are far more bad lessons than good ones in that book. The so called good lessons are very few and they are commonsense and most of them are abrogated by the bad lessons. We certainly do not need a prophet telling us what is commonsense. But the Quran teaches also violence and hate.  

 

  1. Other material things or historical incidents or even verses from the Qur'an, that can be interpreted correctly or incorrectly, depending on the person who is doing so. Why is that way? Well it would've been an insult to our intellect if we hadn't been given the chance to think and choose I guess. Then we won't be arguing would we? I guess there is no better alternative to argue about :)  Anyways, there is always a way to interpret them positively (in my case), and negatively (in your case). If not with reason, then without reason? If I cannot find a way around it, Ill just claim the sources are bad, like any typical Muslim. But why would I do that?  How can I be so stupid to debate without reason? It is blind faith like you mentioned in one of your emails, something like blind love where you cannot really convince people against what they believe. But is that right to do or is it wrong?  Can my illogical, miraculously biast interpretations be true? Well of course they can, and of course they cannot. But the point is that I will not bother myself investigating the bad analysis when i have a good anaylsis that can be believed. Simply because there are much more greater things to believe in the religion, and to feel comfortable with, that the rest of the disputed matters seem so small in comparison, and the claims so hard to believe. That is my defense, and my backup, which is like a tree that is storng only because of its roots.

 

 

A book of guidance should not be confusing. It should be clear and unequivocal. Millions of Muslims genuinely read the Quran and because they understand it the way I understand it they become terrorists. The only difference between them and I is that they agree with it and I don’t. How do you know your understanding is right and ours is not? Furthermore Quran claims to be a clear book and easy to understand. Why is it that so many Muslims disagree on it? Yes I agree with the freedom of choice, but that is not what Islam teaches. First of all a book of Guidance must be clear to everyone, this is not the case with the Quran and then people must be left free to accept it or reject it. This too is not the case in Islam.  

Here is where the difficulty lies. A book of guidance must be unequivocal but people must be free to accept or reject it. The Quran is reverse. It is ambiguous but mandatory.

Quran is a very confused book that contradicts itself and allowes each man to pick and choose anything he wishes and justify his actions whether good or bad. So as a source of guidance the book is useless. Then there is no freedom in accepting or rejecting that book. Muhammad killed those who rejected him and his followers did the same. He had zero tolerance for criticism. Islam means submission which means surrender your will and intelligence to Muhammad and his imaginary deity.  Which part of that is freedom?  

 

1   2    3   >  Next 

0
Your rating: None

Random Articles from All categories

M.F. Rahman vs. Ali Sina
FAQ about Islam: Question 13
A Former Catholic writes to Mr. Idris Tawfiq.