Kamil Arif

From: kamil arif

Subject:
Balance in life is an ideal obligation

Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:21:36 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Imran,

Balance in every aspect of life is an ideal obligation. Since a man is very vulnerable to the undeniable effects of emotions, sentiments, excitements, liking, biases on our personality so it is up to a man to avoid getting submerged in these effects and must strike a balance between them and the observations based on logic and reality. Although maintaining balance is sometimes become difficult yet a person should try to keep himself closer to that balance line and should not stray too much from that reference line. As soon as a person start getting away from that balance line he starts loosing his creditability in every respect. His statements also start loosing weight. If he does not check this trend he might fall in an area known as extremism. Extremist behaviour in any aspect of life is a dangerous sign. Self-analysis is most difficult craft in the life. Riding on the current emotions, the word "Extremism" is largely attributed to the Muslims and rightly so but if we analyze ourselves, we definitely find some persons in all spheres of life having such aptitudes.

Even in our atheist community we have a distinct boundary between a balanced and the extremist atheists. What happens is that when one was a balanced man, his statements carry weight and we start following him and after sometime he turned extremist but because either of his track record or not realizing we keep on following him. This is a not at all an acceptable behaviour.

Dr Sina has a impressive work. He really worked hard and certainly pointed out certain aspects, which need attention. He has certainly carried out a lot of research. He has very well exploited the weak links in Islam. But remember nobody is ideal. One got to be fair, no doubt he has interpreted certain verses in a way which suited to his explanation. He has used a lot of statements and verses out of context to prove his point as well. He has "conveniently" ignore certain aspects like he has taken references from some of the books, which are not even considered authentic amongst a lot of Muslim sects. He must also be knowing that history from where he has taken the references was written much after the Muhammad and a lot of Muslim rulers afterwards attributed a lot of bad doings to Muhammad in order justify their illicit deeds. He has also taken advantage of certain things which are the brainchild of current illiterate mullahs and widely unacceptable amongst the Muslims as well.

You might disagree but after a thorough study and consulting a lot of people, to me, this is a very realistic analysis. Do you still believe explaining weak links is a big deal at all? Realistically speaking, to find negative points whether from any aspect of life, community, nation or religion is not at all a very difficult task!!!!

Dr Sina has definitely left that balance line though he is still not touching that extremist level. But the dangerous thing is that he is getting farther from the line day by day and this is of course a dangerous sign. His abusive language and statements clearly reflecting him being out of balance. I am putting his very few statements from his site www.faithfreedom.org. Please analyze for a moment from the human lens and not from religions lens: "Islam is doomed. My hope was to bring this false doctrine of hate down and make it collapse from within like communism did, but alas your hatred is too big and Islam will be brought down like Nazism did. It will be bloody and destructive" "The good news is that this will end Islam forever, but the cost will be heavy. Millions if not billions will die and mostly they will be Muslims." "You people are blind. You are fool. You are full of hate" "Those who believe in this cult of hate are potential terrorists" "I said long time ago that many of us will see the end of Islam in our own lifetime. Now I am more convinced than ever." These are very few examples. There are certainly many others. His continuous use of abusive language in fact start irritating the readers instead of convincing him.

Thank you very much for your patient reading

Kamil Arif

Ali Sina Responds:

It is important to note that the apologists of Islam come in all shapes and forms. In fact they even pose as atheists to make themselves sound impartial and their views objective. However this is not a new trick.

We can recall the story of the assassination of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, the young, handsome and talented leader of the Bani Nadir who was deceived by Maslama and then assassinated

BUKHARI, VOLUME 5, #369

In this hadith we read that Muhammad complained of Ka’b for badmouthing him in his poetries and asked his followers "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?"

Maslama gets up and asks Muhammad to allow him to lie in order to deceive Ka’b. Muhammad gives his blessing and Maslams goes to Ka’b and complains of Muhammad claiming to be tired of Muhammad’s abuses and his tyranny. Ka’b is deceived and as soon as he steps out of his house, he is attacked and assassinated.

Today we have Muslim apologists who even pose as atheists to appear unbiased and credible.

Mr. Kamil Arif is still a Muslim and that is very clear from his line of reasoning. Let me analyze his criticism of me line by line in order to answer to all of them:

Mr. Kamil Arif writes:

“no doubt he has interpreted certain verses in a way which suited to his explanation.”

What are those certain verses that I have interpreted in a way to suit my explanation? Are there other explanations? A verse can be explained in a variety of ways, but only one of them is the right one. Of course if a verse can mean several things then the divine guidance fails to be of guidance. If you ask a direction from someone and he points his right and left hands to two different directions you will not think of that person as a trustworthy guide but rather a lunatic or a prankster. Also if his directions are so confused that you could interpret them in any way you please again his directions fail to be of guidance. The verses claimed to be from God cannot have several opposing meanings. They must mean one thing only. The question is which explanation is the correct one. Mr. Kamil Arif claims I am misinterpreting certain verses. So he must know the correct explanations of the verses that I misinterpret. May I ask Mr. Arif to tell us exactly which verses I have misinterpreted and what is the correct significance of those verses? Let us put our money where our mouth is. We can’t just throw a stone and walk away.

“He has used a lot of statements and verses out of context to prove his point as well.”

Which verses I have used out of the context and would Mr. Arif guide us to the correct context of those verses?

"He has "conveniently" ignored certain aspects like he has taken references from some of the books, which are not even considered authentic amongst a lot of Muslim sects."

The books I use most are the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. These books are considered Sahih (authentic) by the majority of the Muslims. The Shiites do not consider them as authentic and they have fabricated their own books of hadiths. The major book of Shiite hadith is Baharul Avwar compiled by Majlesi who was born in the year 1037 Hejia. Obviously we can’t rely on his collection of hadiths that were gathered more than a thousand years after the death of Muhammad. So Bukhari and Muslim are more credible than any other collection of hadith. The fact that Shiits do not agree, does not invalidate those hadiths.

Of course one should not accept ALL the hadiths in the collection of Bukahri and Muslim. Some of them are clearly fabrications. For example we have hadiths that speak of the miracles attributed to Muhammad. These hadiths are all false because Quran is clear in the fact that Muhammad did not produce any miracles and his only miracle is the Quran itself.

Despite this, these hadiths are our only contact with the historic Muhammad. The fact is that beside these hadiths and the early books of history of Islam such as Sirat Rasoul, al Waqidi and Tabari we do not have any other source on the biography of Muhammad. There is no need to believe every word in these books but as a whole they provide a fairly clear image of Muhammad. That image is an image of a tyrant, a mentally disturbed monster and not a prophet of God. There is no alternative to that image, unless you want to rely on the books written by the modern day apologists. In that case it is important to ask what sources these later apologists have used.

"He must also be knowing that history from where he has taken the references was written much after the Muhammad and a lot of Muslim rulers afterwards attributed a lot of bad doings to Muhammad in order justify their illicit deeds."

If the entire history of Muhammad is false then how can we know that he actually existed? Do we have a different version of history? What really happened to the Bani Qurayza for example? Did Muhammad massacre all of them cold bloodedly as the books of history and hadith say or he did not? What about Kheibar? Did he raid that town without any warning when people had gone after their daily business and were least expecting, killing all the unarmed men, looting their belongings and enslaving their women and children or not. Why is it that only the incriminating versions of the history survived and there is no mention of the “real” history of Islam where Muhammad was benevolent, just and kind?

The fact that some of the Muslims deny the early history of Islam is in a sense a positive thing. It shows that at least this group of Muslims is embarrassed of what their prophet did. However they do so at the expense of honesty. I have not yet resolved which kind of Muslims are better: Those who are truthful and support the terrorists or those who lie and claim Islam is a religion of peace?

"He has also taken advantage of certain things which are the brainchild of current illiterate mullahs and widely unacceptable amongst the Muslims as well."

For example?

Mr. Kamil Arif wants us to believe that most of the nonsense uttered by the Mullahs are not in the Quran at all and do not exist in Islam. This is a lame excuse. First I ask him, why he does not confront these “illiterate Mullahs” and show them their errors? Why is it that all these “illiterate” Mullahs, coming from all Islamic countries say the same things? If they are not basing their views on the Qruran, what secret book they read? How is it that these Mullahs who have studied decades to earn their degree, are illiterate when it comes to Islam and people such as Mr. Arif who probably have not read the Quran and know very little about hadith are learned and know better?

This claim is truly hilarious. Now we have even westerners such as the US secretary of state Mr. Colin Powell and the French interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, who claim that Mullahs do not know the real Islam and they (these western politicians who have not read the Quran) know better and that Islam is not a violent religion but a religion of peace.

Mr. Arif’s statement claiming that the violent and absurd teachings of Islam prevalent amongst Muslims is the “brainchild of current illiterate mullahs” is ludicrous to say the least and proves he has not read the Quran and is not familiar with the hadith. Mr. Arif, along with many other Muslims lives in lalaland. The Islam that he envisions does not exist anywhere except in his imagination. The real Islam is the Islam of Muhammad and you can learn it only by reading the Quran and the early history of its author.

Mr. Arif accuses me of “explaining the weak links”. Can he please tell us what the “strong” links are? And why the verses that I quote and the stories that I cite are weak? Who can decide which verses of the Quran are weak and which ones are strong? Is this left to the criteria of the individuals? Are Mr. Arif and other modern apologists of Islam authorized to pick and choose which verses are weak and which ones are not?

These are lame excuses. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible I urge Mr. Arif to read the Quran and see for himself the level of barbarity and stupidity of that book. It should be only embarrassing for educated people such as him to follow a stupid charlatan such as Muhammad. It is just a shame that people such as Mr. Arif, who can think and reason and are educated in the West, and supposedly familiar with secular humanism are so reluctant to think on their own and believe in the lies of a mentally sick man of the 7^th century even though this man’s lack of understanding is glaringly obvious through his foolish statements.

Mr. Arif calls me an extremist for predicting end of Islam. That is another proof that he has no clue what Islam is. Islam cannot be reformed. I have shown that time and again. It is much easier to reform Nazism and make it a peaceful and ecumenical ideology than reforming Islam. Our main obstacle is the Qruan – the very Quran that is perfectly understood by the Mullahs but its meaning eludes our friend Mr. Kamil Arif, not because it is difficult but because he has not read it.

Then the question is “WHY?” Why even try to reform Islam? What is there to salvage? Was Muhammad a messenger of God by any chance? If so then sure we should do everything possible to recover the purity of its message. But when we read the Quran, we see this book is a textbook of hate and violence. When we read the history of Muhammad we see this man was a cult leader far worse than David Koresh and Jim Johns. What is there to salvage? Why preserve a religion built by a charlatan liar and a criminal?

No, my views are not extremists. I am speaking the truth. If what I say is not true, please show my errors and I promised I will remove the faithfreedom.org from the Internet. If what I say is true then there is no reason to keep Islam alive even though we miraculously manage to reform it.

But the facts are:

a) Islam cannot be reformed

b) Islam is the brainchild of a pathological narcissist and cult leader. All we have to do is throw it in the garbage bin of the history and forget about it.

Kind regards

Ali Sina