|
Wissam's message of Aug 24
Dear Forum Visitors,
Over the past month or
so you have seen Ali and I debate the merits of Islamic teachings. When I
first showed up to this debate, I thought this debate would be about the
facts, and facts, as you know, should come from credible sources. So, at
the bottom of all of this, is about what sources we cite to give us our
facts and support our views. Allow me to begin my response with a
discussion of our sources.
Credible Sources for our
Debate:
Ali claims that every
single author in the Oxford History is an “apologist.” Yet even he
admits that he hasn’t read the book that he criticizes. Despite what I
asked in our last debate, Ali has offered no evidence that every (or any)
author in the Oxford History could be called an apologist. Another request
that Ali has denied me is to at least define apologist for me, since I
believe that the authors of the Oxford History are actually very objective
as opposed to apologetic. What are the criteria for who is an apologist
and who is not? While Ali is at it, perhaps he could tell me the criteria
for what is biased, since I believe that most of his sources are biased
against Islam. In any good debate, we need to define these recurring
terms.
The Oxford History does
not have any “angle.” Rather, the authors simply inform the reader of
the many sides of the story and give an overview of historical debates on
any given issue. It is a HISTORY book, not some thesis. They talk about
history as accurately as modern scholarship is able to determine it, and
they include all sides, including the sides that critique Islam. But Ali
didn’t know that since he didn’t read it. I don’t think it makes
sense to throw out all 744 pages of it out the window just because he
doesn’t agree with a couple of things he’s heard. At any rate, I
don’t think any rational person would agree with his dismissing the
ENTIRE Oxford History of Islam. That would be pretty silly.
As you read this
response, you will see that I have turned to reputable authors and books
on the subject of Islam, as well as encyclopedias that any one can pick
up. Ali, however, choose to read and quote books written by Muir, or even
more laughably, to quote articles that he wrote himself. For those of you
that don’t know who Muir is, Muir lived in 1861 and he himself is
quoting books written even earlier. In
addition to being overwhelmingly biased, Muir lived so many years ago that
modern scholarship has moved on since then, in accuracy, credible sources,
and the acknowledgement that ancient writers such as Muir were filled with
thinly veiled bias towards Islam. To grasp his bias, look how he starts
his 7th chapter:
THE BIOGRAPHY OF MAHOMET, AND RISE OF
ISLAM.
CHAPTER SEVENTH.
The
relation of Islam to Christianity.
Up
to A.H. 3, little allusion to Christianity1
At
the close of the fifth chapter, it has been stated that up to about the
tenth year of the Mission of Mahomet there is hardly any mention in the
Coran of Christianity or the Christian Scriptures.
In
the Suras of the period reviewed in the preceding chapter, that is in the
three last years of the Prophet's residence at Mecca, we begin to find
detailed notices on the subject. Indeed, the approach then made by
Mahomet to our holy Faith never afterwards became closer; nor did his
views of it materially alter. It will not, therefore, be inappropriate
here to review the entire relation of Islam to Christianity; and, in so
doing, I shall not confine the enquiry to the Meccan period, but extend it
to the whole of the Prophet's life.
Note the underlined
portion: Do you see how Muir refers to “our holy faith?” Hmmm, I
wonder if he is biased towards Islam. If Ali knew anything at all, then he
would know that Christian writers have historically been biased towards
Muslims for many centuries, going back even before the Crusades (the
ultimate manifestation of Christian intolerance towards Muslims).
Furthermore, the fact
that Muir wrote in 1861 has direct bearing on this debate. First of all,
at that time many Islamic texts were not translated into English (many
translations occurred after 1950), and thus Muir did not have access to
many Islamic texts. He almost exclusively relied on early Christian
writers for his sources, who themselves relied on even earlier Christian
writers, and almost all of his sources are both secondary and translated
(check his bibliography). Second of all, let us not forget that the year
1861 was BEFORE slavery ended in this country a time when racism and
prejudice were the order of the day around most of the Western world at
the time Muir wrote. As we know, many writers at the time had the
superiority of White Christendom as their starting point. Third of all, as
you can tell from even a casual reading of his text, Muir is clearly
biased against Islam. Apparently none of this bothered Ali enough to pass
Muir off as a credible source to his unsuspecting readers. Let us see what
Jane Smith, a Christian scholar, tells us about early Christian authors
when they wrote about Islam, to see where Muir is getting his information
and to examine the starting point of writers like him:
“Despite the fact that
in the understanding of medieval Christian clergy Islam was a Christian
heresy (although technically a heretic is one who has been baptized in the
faith), in the popular literature of this time Muslims were clearly
considered to be pagans. This tension between the necessity of seeing
Islam both as “other” and at the same time of understanding it as a
deviation from, a salacious heresy within, the body of Christianity itself
remained throughout the Middle Ages. Christians enjoyed feelings of both
repulsion for and fascination with the Prophet and his religion. Muhammad
was almost universally thought of among Christians as a man of depravity,
dishonor, falsehood, and illicit power. In addition, he was seen as a
sexual libertine, demonstrated most specifically by the well-known facts
of his own multiple marriages and the details of his (that is the
Quran’s) description of the pleasures of the gardens of paradise, which
was seen by the West as both material and carnal. Such rewards promised to
the faithful were convincing proof to the Christians that Islam was a
religion utterly devoid of spirituality. The ill regard with which
Christians held the Prophet of Islam did nothing to prevent them from a
fascination with that they deemed to be the more sordid aspects of his
life and teachings. They saw him as having presented throughout his life a
prime example of sensuality, violence, and immorality, an example that
guaranteed that his followers would demonstrate those same unfortunate
qualities. Christians opinions about the Prophet and his religion had
as their starting point the conviction of the depravity of Muhammad,
but this never stopped them from analyzing whatever elements of the faith
were familiar to them and pronouncing them to be further proof of the
absolute inadequacy of Islam as a religion.
In
western eyes the other primary offense of the Prophet Muhammad and his
followers was the advocacy of force and violence. This moved from the
realm of simple analysis of the life and teachings of the founder of Islam
to the actual experiences that Christians had, or sometimes believed they
had, of Muslims invading their lands and profaning their churches. Such
violence was seen as a natural outgrowth of the Saracen (Arab) terror that
was associated with Arab lands a legacy from the warring tribes of the Old
Testament. It was at once projected upon Islam and expected of
it…Although in reality a great deal of reliable information was
available about Islam and its Prophet, it was fashionable and served the
appropriate polemical purpose to circulate popular tales that ranged from
gross exaggeration to complete and baseless fiction.”
So like the early
Christian writers that Ali quotes, Ali himself has as his starting point
the conviction that Mohammad was evil. As you can see he is putting forth
his own thesis and trying to support it with biased writers. Or perhaps he
gleaned his distorted views from these biased writers. It is kind of like
the “ Which came first, the Chicken or The Egg?” question. At any
rate, even the visitors to this site must agree that we shouldn’t be
quoting Christian writers from 1861 in our debate.
Furthermore, that
link that you gave us in your last response links to a Christian website
that I have visited many times before and they have published outright
lies and half-truths about our religion. Anyone is welcome to visit their
entire site and compare it to any book detailing the teachings of Islam. I
invite all of you to do this. The silly list of “contradictory claims”
in the Quran can easily be answered by a knowledgeable 6 year old. They
take many things out of context, but at least they are honest enough to
include rebuttals to their claims by Muslims. I also noticed that you took
your silly example about the mathematics of Islamic inheritance directly
from the site, although you have not bothered to offer the rebuttals made
to those claims, as Answering-Islam.com does. Where is Ali’s claim of
objectivity here? Can’t he even offer what Muslims say in return to
these claims? Or would their entirely rational and historical explanations
put a dent in his efforts to promote prejudice and hate? I suggest that he
stop pointing everyone to websites and books that spew out intolerance
about Islam, just so he can try to back up his views. These writings were
made to REFUTE and NOT EXPLAIN Islam’s teachings. They are inherently
biased.
So there you have it:
I am quoting the Oxford History of Islam and encyclopedias and Ali is
quoting writers from 1861 and Christian websites. Which would you rather
accept as a credible source?
Ali’s
“interpretations”
Besides
quoting sources from the 1800’s, Ali claims to interpret Islam directly
from the Quran and the Hadith. Yet Ali cannot read either one in the
original Arabic. If he wishes to understand a particular word or phrase,
he must rely on secondary sources, which also must be translated for him
into English.
The subject of
translation must be examined in this debate, because it has a direct
bearing on anyone’s interpretation. As everyone here knows, whenever
something is translated from its original, there will be a loss of meaning
and the intention of the original author is then subject to the
“filter,” if you will, of the author translating the work. This is
because the translator must use his own word choice and literary
discretion when deciding upon what words or phrases to use. For those of
you who have little linguistic training, this is a big problem. For
example, there are different shades of meaning between the two words
‘ugly’ and ‘hideous’. Although both mean unattractive, there is an
emphasis and power to the word “hideous’ that is not necessarily
present in the word “ugly.” If I say, “That color is ugly,” that
is slightly different from saying, “that color is hideous.” When I
translate something, I am using my own judgment when deciding which of
these words to use. When it comes to cases in the Quran, every scholar
agrees that it is best to examine the words in their original Arabic. Ali
is unable to do this.
Also, time plays a big
part in it. It is even harder to translate something that was written
centuries ago into a more modern, and totally alien language, as in the
example of translating Classical Arabic into Modern American English. The
loss of meaning can only increase. If any of you speak another language,
you can see how difficult it is to translate even one word into
English—usually you would have to offer many words in order to give the
subtleties of meaning that the foreign word represents. The fact that you
are translating an ancient word into modern language can only represent
more problematic issues, and thus limit critical interpretation.
Translation also cannot
capture the beauty and essence of the art of language. For example, can an
Arabic reader really appreciate the beauty of Shakespeare’s word choice,
sentence structure (especially in 10 syllable line sonnets), or double
meanings and puns in his writings, if they were translated? Of course not.
Similarly, can an English speaker really appreciate the different shades
of meaning, both connotative and denotative, in the Quran or hadith? Of
course not. Translation clearly has its limitations.
This topic is important
to our debate, because Ali cannot speak Arabic and relies on the English
translations of the Quran and Hadith. This takes a higher importance
because he focuses on certain words that have different shades of meaning
in Arabic, but that are invisible in the English translation. This could
be the reason why he chooses to think that Muhammad thought the earth was
flat and other misinterpretations on his website. No sane interpreter of
the Quran would (or has) ever accused the Prophet Muhammad of thinking
this. The sheer absurdity of this claim being passed off as “rational
thinking” should be a big red flag to all of you that Ali is
misinterpreting the words of the Quran and hadith.
Another
example is how Ali quoted the Azhar scholar, which was inEnglish, and not
Arabic, the language of his original remarks. This is important, since
words like Jihad get translated into “holy war,” often in the English
language, when in fact as you know (or should know), Jihad means
“struggling or striving against evil.” When Jihad is literally
translated as “holy war,” the part of the meaning that emphasizes the
internal struggle between good and evil is lost, because of the negative
and limited connotation of the phrase “holy war.” What Ali fails to
point out is that the Quran has a different word altogether for war. But I
will assume he didn’t know that—which just
shows how not knowing the original Arabic, and relying on secondary
English sources, can affect people’s ideas and views, and represents a
limitation to Ali’s ability to focus on language in this debate. In
other words, because he are relying on English translations, he is
effectively a slave to someone else’s word choice and perceived
meanings—he cannot decide for himself, or accurately interpret, words in
the Quran. Ali claims that he “goes straight to the source” for his
interpretations, but in fact he is not going to the ORIGINAL source. Ali
is merely relying on other people’s interpretations, which could be
biased, as we have proved in the case of Ali quoting Muir. He is not an
expert on the Quran, because he has never read the original Quran. That is
like saying that there is an Arabic speaking expert on Shakespeare, when
he has never read Shakespeare in the original English.
That
is why your buddies who claimed to write a Sura in the “style” of the
Quran failed. They did not write it in Arabic. That is like saying I can
write better than Shakespeare and then I write something in Polish. That
is absurd. Show me those imposters writing the verses in Arabic, and I
would be happy to refer it to ANY professor of the Arabic language for his
opinion on whether those fake verses can match up to the Quran. I will
leave this as an open challenge, because you will never find an expert in
the Arabic language agree that those so called verses in the style of the
Quran would ever be more beautiful than the real thing.
Yet
another reason that Ali must leave his original sources is that he has
proven that he cannot interpret them in the accepted manner that they
should be interpreted, which is progressively and with a purpose. He
interprets the hadiths and bits of the Quran for the sole purpose
to show that we are barbaric or backwards. The interpretation of the
hadith is the opposite—Muslims are to read them with an eye towards
finding solutions to a particular problem. In addition to deleting parts
of the hadith, or not including the verses before and after the verse he
quotes in the Quran in order to put their meaning within some meaningful
context, Ali twists their meanings to suit his already preconceived
notions. In other words, everything he reads in the Quran and Hadith, he
cites to prove his already preconceived ideas that Islam is evil or
backward. And you know what, just for arguments sake let’s just say that
that is fine—but his undoing lies in the fact that he recognizes
absolutely NO GOOD in Islam, and that is where the vast majority of people
just won’t agree with him. Even if we were 50% evil, that means we
are 50% good—but he doesn’t point out ANY of the good, does he?
That’s why he is biased, and that’s why his credibility is shot.
As for the accuracy of
the Quran, Bernard Lewis, the eminent historian, claims that “there is
no argument about the accuracy and authenticity of the Canon.” Good luck
trying to say that Lewis is an apologist. Ali, I suggest you don’t even
bother, since I have even seen some of your forum visitors speak of him
with admiration.
But let’s look at a
prime example of the absurd logic behind Ali’s claims:
“If everyone agreed
that Quran contains no mistakes, everyone would be a Muslim by now”
For all you law
school students, read that sentence over. What is Ali assuming when he
makes that statement? Ali, has it ever occurred to you that not
“everyone” has read the Quran? Or if they have, it might not
necessarily be in the original language, so they can comprehend its full
meaning and beauty? Or that the great majority of people that do read the
Quran respect it at the very least?
The Quran was written
in a revolutionary mix of outstanding mix of poetry and prose, and
literally introduced a new style of writing to the pagan Arabs, who
already excelled in writing poetry and prose. The Quran did not resemble
in any way the style of the period. Just hearing the Quran’s elegance of
language, superb structure of its words and sentences, in its style of
narration, in the extraordinary beginning and ending of its verses, in its
flow of thought, in the introduction of parables and description of
events, in the forms of its admonitions and warning and in the matter of
its reasoning and arguments, it is a book unparalleled in the whole range
of human history. Arab Christians also acknowledge it as the supreme
example of the Arabic language. It is a truly original book, and it was
revealed by an illiterate man. This is its miracle: No illiterate man can
have such a grasp on language that he could write something like the Quran. That is like a man born deaf and becoming a master pianist; or
someone who never saw a painting and picking up a brush to paint an
original and timeless masterpiece. Although some claim that the Prophet
Muhammad got his ideas from the Bible, it doesn’t resemble the Bible at
all in content or writing style. People that have read both the Bible and
the Quran realize that there are barely any similarities.
Ali, however, can
never know that, because he cannot read the Quran in its original
language. He relies on faulty English translations, and he skews the
meanings in English, not even in Arabic. Anyone will tell you that if you
have read the Quran in English, you have not really read the Quran. If you
read Shakespeare in Arabic, could you really appreciate the beauty of his
composition and word choice? Of course not. Therefore, you cannot
appreciate the beauty of the Quran if you have not read it in Arabic. You
cannot understand the true depth and width of the meaning of its words
when they are translated into English.
As for your claim that
most people don’t read or rely on the hadith, I do not believe that
“many” Muslims choose not to believe in the words of the hadith. I
think that many Muslims find guidance in the hadith. Although some stories
deal with issues that are not found in the modern Western world anymore,
please remember that most of the world has not kept pace with the US and
Europe. Rural areas of Russia, China, and Afghanistan still live the
lifestyle they’ve lived for countless centuries. Therefore, although
parts of the hadith might not seem relevant to us, with our Mercedes
Benzes and Laptop computers, they might seem very relevant to farmers and
fisherman in parts of the world that are barely remembered by us and have
their own mode of living, which actually might not be too different from 7th
century Arabia. The point is that in each hadith, we must not dwell
exclusively on the situation per se, but we must also search for the
deeper meaning behind each situation. What is the meaning or moral of the
story? How can we apply these principles by analogy to the present
situation? This is how Muslims are taught to approach the teachings in the
hadith.
At any rate, there is
often divergent views within the Islamic community about the meanings of
certain hadiths, so when you say “Islam says this,” or “Islam says
that,” you are not being completely honest. Muslims are not necessarily
monolithic on every single one of our views. Islam strikes a balance
between what can be argued about and what can’t. On some issues, there
is room for disagreement as long as one can support his views accurately.
On many other issues, there can be no disagreement because the Quran
and/or Hadith makes things so plain to understand. The closest thing that
I can think of that can describe the interplay between the debatable and
the un-debatable in Islam is the interplay between the U.S Constitution
and congressional legislation. The former is for the most part,
unchangeable, the latter is in a constant state of flux in order to adapt
to society’s needs. Islamic Law and scholarship is very much like
this—it chooses to seek a balance between the timeless laws of God as
found in the Quran and Hadith, and the adaptive laws formulated by man for
human growth and progression. Islamic law—barring the extreme
interpretations which I am sure you will bring up--has often times been
described as tremendously pragmatic by many scholars.
Before I move on to the
subject of rape and captives in Islam, let me just take a moment to cut
and paste the definition of “belief” once again, in order to rebut
your attempted stipulation on a limited scope of its definition. Belief is
a broad word, Ali. You cannot just take a piece of it and claim that it
covers our entire debate. You say that in order to believe something, then
you cannot have real evidence of it. The dictionary says:
Belief
(from Dictionary.com)
- The mental act,
condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
- Mental acceptance
of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of
something.
- Something believed or
accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets
accepted by a group of persons.
Rape
and captives in Islam:
To
all of you reading this today, let me state this clearly: it is
absolutely, utterly, and totally ridiculous, preposterous, and absurd to
think that Muslims can lawfully force themselves on a woman in a sexual
manner. That claim is just so unbelievable, I am actually having a hard
time accepting that I am writing about this. No Muslim can force himself
on a woman. Period. That is well known. So no matter what you say or how
you spin it, Muslims cannot rape women, whether they are captives or not,
and we abhor it more than anyone else. If you, or anyone reading this
“debate” thinks that we are “allowed” to rape women captives, just
stop reading this response and read a book about Islam first.
In order to support
my point, let us look at what John Renard, who holds a PHd in Islamic
Studies from Harvard University and is a practicing Catholic, says about
the stringent requirements to Jihad:
“no action can be
justified as authentic jihad if any of the following conditions obtain:
the killing of non-combatants, prisoners of war, or diplomatic personnel;
use of poisonous weapons (beginning with poison tipped arrows and swords,
for example) or inhuman means to kill; atrocities in conquered lands,
including the mutilation of persons and animals, and wanton despoliation
of natural resources; and the sexual abuse of captive women. All of
that, however, has not prevented horrors from being perpetrated in the
very name of Islam, to the great sorrow of many millions of Muslims.
Nothing can excuse those who engage in such atrocities, whatever their
express motivation, whatever their avowed religious affiliation. (page
146, “101 Questions and Answers on Islam”, Renard)
So you see, Ali,
Islam teaches that we are not allowed to sexually abuse any captives
obtained during a jihad. That said, let us check out one more quote from
the Encyclopedia of World History, under the entry Slave Trade (Arab):
“The Arab Slave Trade
was a much older institution that that of the European-run trade, but was
organized in a less regimented way. Slaves were primarily acquired through
military conquest and by purchase in regions of Africa, East and South
Europe, and Central Asia. Unlike the slaves that were taken to the
European colonies, slaves in the Arab-run trade, due mainly to laws passed
by Muhammad, were given certain rights that were intended to ensure they
received humane treatment. Many received vocational and religious training
as well as, in the case of the Mamluks, military training. Many enslaved
women on becoming concubines were legally entitled to the same rights as
non-slave wives.”
So as you can see,
Ali, there is, in effect, no such thing as sex-slaves or concubines in
Islam. If someone chose to have sex with their slave, the slave first had
to consent (as Islam teaches) and many slaves did, since it would ensure
their extensive rights as wives under Islam, which includes, amongst other
things, the end of their slavery; guaranteed property rights; their rights
to inheritance; their children would be free, etc…All of which were not
guaranteed to any other slaves outside Islamic Law, especially not slaves
in the Americas. As Ronald Segal, the author of ‘Islam’s Black
Slaves,” pointed out, one of the huge differences between the two
different slave trades (Arab and European) was that according to Islam,
slaves were to be treated as people and not as possessions or property.
As a side note, does
everyone here see how easy it is for me to support my views? I literally
open up the Encyclopedia to support my points. I have never seen Ali
support any of his points with the Encyclopedia—especially not his very
questionable definition of schizophrenia. Instead, he chooses to quote
Muir, Christian websites, or his own articles, or maliciously misinterpret
the Quran and Hadith. This should be a wake up call that Ali are an
extremist—no reputable publications (or books written in the 20 century)
support your views. That is why you must turn to the hadith and Quran and
twist their meanings, and even then, no scholar would agree with your
interprations. Whenever Ali finds a scholar that does not agree with him,
he calls them an apologist and dismisses their views. He would rather read
biased authors like Muir or come up with his own creative interpretations
than listen to what the Encyclopedia has to say. But perhaps every
encyclopedia is apologistic too?
Miracles
Miracles
are present in every religion. What is a miracle? A miracle is an event
that is meant to defy scientific or rational explanation. What is the
purpose of a miracle? When the prophets came to warn their people of the
power of God, many of them (and you have to remember that since these
people couldn’t read, they were incredibly ignorant and couldn’t use
their still undeveloped reasoning to apprehend God’s existence) demanded
to see God, or to at least see proof of God.
There is no scientific explanation to claims of miracles precisely
because there SHOULDN’T be. It must defy reason in order for people to
believe and accept the presence of God. One example is how the Prophet
Muhammad miraculously escaped an attempt on his life by 12 assassins who
staked out his house. When they finally walked in his house to kill him,
they could not find him, causing an enormous uproar and widespread
confusion in Mecca. In actuality, Allah allowed his Messenger to walk
right by them. His disappearance from the sight of these assassins is well
documented. Another more obvious example is that Moses split the Red Sea
and freed the Hebrew slaves. This HAD to happen, since, logically
speaking, the Egyptians would not just let their slaves walk off one day,
and settle 300 miles eastward without the slaves’ total decimation
and/or recapture. That’s like the slaves in the pre-civil war South
suddenly getting very organized one day and walking off to live just over
the border in Mexico without harassment. I don’t think our government at
the time, which was so dependant on those slaves, would allow that to
happen. And if you think the US response in a situation like that would be
bad, then what would the Egyptian Pharaoh do in a situation like that? The
simple fact that the Jews even exist today has to do with their freedom
from the Pharaoh so many centuries ago. If you accept these
miracles—like all Christians, Muslims, and Jews do---then you are forced
to believe in the very power behind these miracles, which is God. If you
believe in God, then you believe that splitting the moon or raising the
dead would be quite easy to do for an infinite super-being to do. If you
do not believe it—and I know you don’t—no matter, because over half
the world does, and has for countless centuries. So if you do not believe
in God’s ability to split the moon, then you believe in no miracles at
all, and if you believe in no miracles at all, then perhaps you can
logically explain to me how the Jews just walked away from Egypt one day.
The Spirit
World, the Jinn, and the Unseen.
If you believe
in any religion, you believe in the unseen. Many people believe in the
supernatural or the spirit world. Although in our highly science-oriented
society we are taught not to believe in such things, it doesn’t surprise
us that many people do anyway and more people are turning to religion and
new age spirituality movements. Generally, we glean our knowledge of the
supernatural from first and second hand accounts of the paranormal.
Although many stories of the paranormal are without credence, there are
many accounts that do have credibility, and that defy scientific
explanation. Some of these people who claim they have had run ins with the
paranormal are normal, ordinary soccer moms who have no apparent reason to
make things up, and who would rather not have the media attention (most of
it negative) that might come with coming forward. Many of them ask no
money for their story.
One interesting
story would be the
“Amityville Horror,” where a family bought their dream house in
Amityville, Long Island, only to find supernatural occurrences happening
everyday. Records show that the house was built over an ancient Indian
burial ground. Centuries later, circa 16-1700, witches were known to have
conducted satanic ceremonies in the cemetery. The previous tenants
of the Amityville mansion were a family of 8. A member of the family
claimed to hear voices ordering him to kill the rest of the family, and he
promptly took a shotgun and killed them all in their beds. No shotgun
blasts were heard by the neighbors, or the other family members, who
remained sleeping in their beds until they were killed one by one. At any
rate, the new family that bought the house after the murders, left the
house after being attacked by unseen forces less than 28 days after moving
into the 7 bedroom mansion. They asked no money for their story, and
refused to ever return to the house that they still continued to own.
There are many more details that I have not included, but that are quite
interesting, and verified by independent sources. I suggest you all read
about this story and make up your own minds. It is a prime and
well-documented case of the supernatural.
Other people who
have claimed to have contact with the spirit world are no less than
professional modern day witches (wicca), magicians (such as the Order of
the Golden Dawn), and Shamans (Voodoo and indigenous priests) who actively
seek ways in which to communicate with a world which they very much
believe exists. Major civilizations, such as the Mayans, Egyptians, and
Aztecs have built their entire existence around belief in the
supernatural. Even cavemen, who did not need the belief in the
supernatural to survive their harsh conditions, have left evidence of
elaborate religious rituals. Many people around the world believe that
Voodoo magic exists in parts of Haiti, Cuba, and the surrounding
islands—and many of them claim to have seen the supernatural happen in
front of them (to read an excellent and reasoned survey of Voodoo
practices, read “Voodoo in Haiti,” by Alfred Matraux.)
Ali, Jinns
exist, although I make no pretense of knowing their lives and habits. If
you are looking for your scientific proof of jinn and/or exorcism, then
know that reputable TV shows such as Oprah, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters have featured exorcists on
their shows. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time, and other
publications have charted the proliferation of exorcisms across the United
States. The ABC news show ‘20/20’ filmed an exorcism several years
ago. John Stossel, the intreprid TV journalist and well-known skeptic,
claimed himself a believer after witnessing the exorcism. He just didn’t
understand how a 12 year old girl could speak ancient Latin and Hebrew,
and have such incredible strength. I suggest you read a book called
American Exorcism by Michael W. Cuneo. Just so you don’t think he is
some quack, let me tell you a little about him. Michael
W. Cuneo
teaches sociology and anthropology at Fordham University in New York City.
His previous books include the highly praised The Smoke of Satan, and his
research has been featured in such publications as The New York Times and
Los Angeles Times.
But interestingly enough, I find that you ‘believe’ in souls.
Tell me Ali, what is your direct, scientific evidence that we have souls?
What does they look like? Where are your scientific journals proving that
we have souls? Why should I ‘believe’ in something that clearly defies
science? You cannot PROVE that we have souls, so you are engaging in blind
faith, aren’t you Ali? If you believe we have souls that are unseen,
what do you suppose is the source of our souls? The Big Bang? Are you
telling me that souls are made of physical elements? Are souls solid,
liquid, or gas? Ali, if you believe in souls, then don’t make fun of
people who believe in the spirit world of Jinn, especially since your
beliefs are based on your own conjecture and mine are based on a reputable
holy book. Show me an “aura,” such as the one you believe in, and
I’ll show you a Jinn.
Magic and the
spirit world aside, to believe in the unseen is not necessarily the same
as having blind faith. The difference lies in the source of the
teaching-whether that source is credible or not. For example, I would not
consider it blind faith to listen to the exact words of Jesus as found in
the Bible. I would consider it blind faith to believe in some of the
rituals or theological teachings as found in the Roman Catholic church,
however, without questioning them as to their origin and validity.
Similarly, I would not doubt the words of the Prophet Muhammad, because he
was known to be honest (named Al-Amin, “The Truthful,” by people in
Mecca even before his Prophethood) by a great many people, especially the
ones around him, who knew him best. Furthermore, the very fact that the
Prophet instructs us to learn as much as we can from as many sources as
possible, as well as the Quranic command to think and use our reasoning to
apprehend God’s purpose in creation, shows me that the God encourages
thinking. Logic and reason, according to Islam, is there for you to
understand God’s creation. The entire field of theology is nothing more
than applying reason and human logic to religious concepts. We are not
allowed to believe in anything unless we question its purpose and
validity. Islam came to eradicate superstitions, such as the practices of
drinking the blood of your enemies in order to make you a better warrior.
That would be ridiculous to a Muslim. We are taught to question
everything, and even if we cannot find the right answers, it is the
sincerity of the search that will ultimately matter to God.
Nevertheless, it
is also that Muslims (especially converts) have questioned these things
and found satisfactory answers. Converts to Islam have already questioned
the legitimacy of the Prophet and his teachings. They have found that the
answers—found in reputable books and encyclopedias—have erased their
skepticism. The many teachings of Islam have provided them with answers to
their life questions. Islam, in fact, claims to have all the answers, and
for every single Muslim, it does, and has for over 15 centuries and
countless nations. I find it hard to believe that the Quran, which demands
that humanity use its logic and reason, would approve of blind faith.
Islam is not afraid of its adherents thinking on their own. If anything,
it encourages it, because it knows that the ultimate source of truth, and
the final destination of your contemplative journey, will be God, the
source of all knowledge.
Although you
might not respect our beliefs, the simple fact that the idea of Islam has
transcended both geography and time, both the minds of individuals and the
minds of entire empires, proves that it is a legitimate source of
guidance. No one will agree with you if you say that Islam has not helped
to cultivate the very idea of what a civilization should be. There have
just been too many contributions to the fields of art, science, law,
government, religion, philosophy—the list goes on and on. Many of these
advancements were made by people who you, ironically, consider idiotic for
the simple fact that they believe in God and/or Islam. They, in turn,
would think you are idiotic for not believing in a creator of what you see
around you. To them--and to all Muslims--history, the existence of the
prophets, and everything around you is proof that we must believe in God,
and this is a reason why we don’t approve of blind faith—we have the
proof of our creator right in front of us. Our minds are there to
apprehend the objects and events around and inside of us as further proof
of an intelligent creation. The Prophet Muhammad—whether you think he
was right or wrong-- was a sincere believer in the infinite super-being we
call God, as can be seen through just about any book on the subject. In
his conflicts he was never guided by lust for treasure or land. He was
always guided by his devotion to God. He is a successful role model for
both men AND women for countless centuries and for countless nations.
The claim that the Prophet was insane.
In Ali’s response,
he claims that the Prophet was a schizophrenic. First of all, what is his
definition of schizophrenia? Ali, are you making all of this up? A
schizophrenic is not someone torn between good and evil as you say. A
schizoprehrenic is usually (broadly) understood to be a person in
psychosis, that hallucinates and hears voices to the point of literally
being unable to continue his or her life. Ali, where did you get that
definition of schizophrenia? What on earth would possess you to make
definitions up for words like that? Readers, just by examining Ali’s
definition of schizophrenia, it is abundantly clear that he is making
things up out of thin air in order to do anything to discredit the
Prophet.
So, you might
counter, didn’t the Prophet see and hear things? Yes, but these would
not be considered hallucinations because they were not indicative of any
psychosis. This man signed treaties and was a fully functioning human
being, Ali. By all accounts he was a great general and even greater
diplomat. His closest companions certainly did not accuse of him of being
some out-of-control maniac that heard and saw random things. Look at the
case of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, a person who initially opposed Islam (and,
incidentally, once said all the same things then that you say on your
website about the Prophet now) but after meeting him and listening to him,
he converted and became one of the most devoted Muslims in history and
became the second Caliph. Was Umar insane to listen to whom you call a
schizophrenic? No scholar would ever accuse Umar or any other Caliph of
being insane, so tell me Ali, how could Muhammad have such a following if
he was irrational and hallucinatory, like all schizophrenics are? The
Prophet Muhammad was a predictable man: he valued truth, justice, and
other virtues of God, not unlike what Jesus taught. Schizophrenics, on the
other hand, are not even close to being predictable. I think that you are
the crazy one, if you read about Muhammad’s life, and accuse him of
being a schizophrenic.
Second of all, as I
have proven to the world, you are using Christian biased writers to
support your claims of the Prophet’s insanity, which are clearly what
you use to support your propaganda against the prophet. As Jane Smith
clearly states, these sources all thought that Muhammad was lustful and
violent and crazy, just like you do. She also points out that these views
“ranged from gross exaggeration to complete and baseless fiction.” It
is no wonder that Ali uses these biased authors to support your views.
Doesn’t the Ku Klux Klan use snippets of the Bible in order to support
their hatred? That sounds a lot like the approach Ali’s website
uses—to use snippets of the Quran and Hadith to support his racist and
hateful propaganda.
Furthermore, If he was
insane then how did he govern the entire city of Medina so well (or even
at all?). How could an insane person have such aptitude for military
strategy? How could an insane person negotiate contracts and treaties? How
could an insane person be a successful businessman for so long? What about
the people of Medina that asked him to negotiate a settlement between the
warring tribes of the city? If he was insane, then why did they abide by
his decisions? If you think they didn’t know he was insane until later
on, then why did they continue to listen to him and look at him as the
paradigm of human behavior? Why did the converts keep coming to an
“insane” man?
Ali, why did some people (some of the
unbelievers and pagans) believe he was insane when other people thought he
was perfectly sane? If he was indeed insane as you describe, then all
people must have acknowledged it. Schizoprhenics do not act insane around
just a few select people, Ali. They are crazy around everyone.
Furthermore, when the unbelievers realized that he was NOT insane, they
changed their excuse for disbelieving his message into “Muhammad is
possessed.” They later moved on to other excuses—no matter, though,
since they were looking for any excuse not to listen to him, so
that they could continue living their very backward lifestyles. Like you,
they did anything they could to discredit the Prophet. It is interesting
to note that the arguments that attempt to discredit the Prophet have not
changed for countless centuries. The things you say in this debate were
said by the pagan Meccan enemies of the Prophet Muhammad 15 centuries ago.
They thought he was insane because he tried to reform the lifestyles of
his countrymen. History now tells us that he reformed their society for
the better.
Michael H. Hart, the noted historian, ranks
Muhammad as the number ONE most influential person in history (“The 100,
A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”). Ali, Hart is
definitely NOT an apologist and I invite you to read his analysis of
Muhammad’s life and impact to see that for yourself. The number one most
influential person in history is not bad for someone you claim to be
schizophrenic, huh?
For a Prophet to be called insane is nothing
new: John the Baptist was called the same thing. Jesus was ridiculed for
bringing his message of devotion to God as well. Just to show you the
hypocrisy of the unbelievers, Jesus was convicted in a Hebrew Religious
court for blasphemy. Think about that: Jesus was convicted of blasphemy.
Doesn’t that sounds absurd? But that is how far the unbelievers went to
discredit the messengers of God. Why would anyone do that? Often—and the
Prophet Muhammad’s case mirrors the case of Jesus—The message that the
new prophet brought would mean and end to the status quo, of which just
too many people were profiting out of. Quite simply, the religious
establishment did not want to accept either the Prophet Muhammad’s
message or the Prophet Jesus’ message because that would mean an end to
their monopoly on religious control and it would mean a big hit on their
religious donations and money. The Prophets Mohammad and Jesus were simply
too revolutionary. Their message had to be stopped in every conceivable
way—from attempts on their life to propaganda against them and their
message. What you say about the Prophet Muhammad was said about every
Prophet before him.
As far as your claims
that the Prophet was some kind of sex maniac, let us see what noted
British author Geoffrey Parrinder, wrote in his book “Mysticim in the
World’s Religions” (Oxford University Press, New York, page 121):
“No great religious
leader has been so maligned as Muhammad. Attacked in the past as a
heretic, an imposter, or a sensualist, it is still possible to find him
referred to as “the false prophet.” A modern German writer accuses
Muhammad of sensuality, surrounding himself with young women. This man was
not married until he was twenty-five years of age, then he and his wife
lived in happiness and fidelity for twenty-four years, until her death
when was forty-nine. Only between the age of fifty and his death at
sixty-two did Muhammad take other wives, only one of whom was a virgin,
and most of them were taken for dynastic and political reasons. Certainly,
the Prophet’s record was better than that head of the Church of England,
Henry VIII.”
We must also remember
that:
- Semitic
culture and Arab practice permitted polygamy. It was practiced by Jews
in Arabia as well. Islam demanded that polygamy be limited, if not
eliminated altogether, and eliminated abusive marriages.
- During
the prime of his life, the Prophet Muhammad remained dedicated to one
woman, Khadija.
- It
was only after Khadija’s death that he took other wives.
- Muhammad’s
use of the special dispensation from God to exceed the limit of four
wives imposed by the Quran, occurred only after the death of Khadija.
- Most
of the eleven marriages had political and social motives. Many were to
cement alliances. Others were marriages to the widows of his
companions who had fallen in combat and were in need of protection,
both physical and financial, because remarriage was difficult in a
society that valued virgin marriages.
- Aisha
was the only virgin that Muhammad married and the wife with whom he
had the closest relationship. Contary to your claims that he was
molesting her, she never showed any signs of being abused as a child,
and she went on to enjoy the highest respect from the entire Muslim
community, and became one of Islam’s greatest theologians. She had
nothing but respect for the Prophet and by all accounts, she was a
well adjusted, normal individual, unlike many of those who were
sexually abused at a young age. They consummated their marriage many
years after the Prophet initially asked for her hand in marriage.
- Muhammad’s
teachings and actions, as well as the Quranic message, improved the
status of all women—wives, daughters, mothers, widows, and orphans.
There are many stories about the Prophet’s concern and care for his
wives.
Muslims and lying
All God-fearing
people hate deception. Since you decide to quote Al-Ghazali (out of
context, I am sure), I’ll do you one better and just quote right out of
the hadith:
It is reported on the
authority of Asma bint Yazid (Allah be pleased with her) that the
Messenger of Allah (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
Falsehood is unlawful except in three (matters): falsehood of a man to his
wife to please her, falsehood in war, falsehood in restoring peace among
men. (Tirmidhi)
Clearly, the Quran
despises deceit:
“O you who believe! Be
careful in your duty to Allah and be with the truthful.” (9:19)
“Stand fast to truth
and justice for Allah’s sake, though it may be against yourselves or
your parents or your near relatives. (4:135)
So as you can see,
Ali, Islam despises deceit and falsehood. In the case of the special
circumstances that the Prophet made mention of, frankly, I agree with
everyone one of them. If it is absolutely necessary to lie to your wife so
you don’t hurt her feelings and to preserve the integrity of the family
at large, then it is permissible, though I would not say encouraged. That
is meant as a last resort. This is good news for men everywhere, who use
this policy anyway, out of common sense. Second, lying and deception when
on the battlefield is almost a necessity so one can gain a strategic
advantage. All governments, including our own, launch “disinformation”
campaigns to preserve their strategic advantage. It is often a matter of
life and death, or as we say now, ‘national security.’ Lastly, if you
must engage in a lie in order to bring peace amongst 2 groups of people,
then it is permitted since that is considered to be a noble end. That does
not mean that everything should be a lie—of course lying should be
minimized as much as possible when dealing with these exceptions. But for
example, if two groups of people are fighting and hate each other, and I
went to one of the groups and said, “The other group told me that
despite your hatred, they respect and admire many things about you,” and
I did the same to the other group, then that would be good, since it would
help to build some badly needed bridges. I can only see positivity coming
out of something like that. So the lying we are talking about is not in
the traditional sense of squirming out of something, or making up stories
to obtain some worldly end. It is used for reasons that are practical and
worthy and not damaging in any way, such as maintaining the emotional
balance of your wife (which would have a direct impact on the entire
family), maintaining peace between people, and maintaining your advantage
during times of war. Conveniently enough, another example is you. Ali,
since you did not mention this hadith about lying and these very important
verses from the Quran that insist on truthfulness in all matters. Not
giving the whole truth in this situation is definitely considered lying,
but we all know that you mix in some lies with what you say on your
website, so this is nothing new.
The Prophet and the
Jews:
Contrary to what you
say on your website that the Prophet set about massacring Jews, will
expose yet another of your lies and propaganda by quoting directly out of
the Encyclopedia Judaica and see what they have to say when we look up the
entry “Muhammad.” As you read, note the option for settlement offered
to the Jewish tribes in each conflict. This differed tremendously from
other Arab leaders and tribes who would NEVER offer any kind of settlement
option. Other tribes simply set about massacring all inhabitants:
The Jewish Tribes:
“In April 624 a
scuffle in the market between Muslims and Jews of the Qaynuqa tribe
resulted in the deaths of one from each group. The Aynuqa, who were
traders and goldsmiths of Medina, retired to their strongholds where they
were besieged. They surrendered to Muhammad after 15 days, and were given
three days to leave the city, without their arms and probably without
their goldsmiths’ tools as well. They stopped at a nearby Jewish
community and a month later moved on to Syria.
In
August 625, when morale among the Muslims was low after an unsuccessful
battle with the Meccans, Muhammad visited the Jewish tribe of Nadir and
demanded financial aid. They told him to wait while they prepared a meal.
Several moments later Muhammad went home, explaining to his companions
that he received a warning from God that the Jews were planning to attack
him while he sat there. He immediately sent an ultimatum to the Nadir,
demanding that if they did not leave Medina within ten days they would be
put to death. If they left, however, they would continue to own their palm
gorves and receive part of the produce. The Nadir held out for 15 days
before surrendering to Muhammad. Thus, they had to abandon their weapons
and were not entitled to their date harvest. The tribe proceeded to
Khaybar, 70 miles to the north. When the Meccans unsuccessfully besieged
the Medina, the Qurayza, the last major clan of Jews in medina, were
neutral but engaged in clandestine negotiations with the Meccans [against
Muhammad]. After the Meccans departed, Muhammad turned his forces against
the strongholds of the Qurayza. After 25 days they asked to surrender on
the same terms as the Nadir. However, Muhammad demanded an unconditional
surrender, which they accepted. Some of the tribe of Aws allied with the
Qurayza appealed on their behalf. Muhammad met their request by appointing
as judge Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, a leader of the Aws. Sa’d
[NOT MUHAMMAD] decreed that all the men of the Qurayza
(about 600) should be put to death, and the women and children sold as
slaves. The sentence was carried out the next day. This severe action
cannot be interpreted as an attack against Jews as such, since other minor
Jewish clans which had maintained neutrality were allowed to remain in
Medina unmolested. The deep and underlying reason for Muhammad’s attacks
on the Qaynuqa and the Nadir lay in their criticism of the Koranic
revelation which aimed at undermining the ideological foundation of the entire
Islamic political order. They were also giving political support to
Muhammad’s opponents. As long as the Jews refrained from such
hostile activities, they were unmolested.
The
Jews last base of opposition to Muhammad was Khaybar, where they
actively conspired with neighboring Arabs to confront Muhammad in battle.
In May/June 628, Muhammad conquered the oasis. The settlement with the
Jews stipulated that they would continue to live there, but pay a tax on
half of their produce. This was a new principle regarding the status of
minorities in Muslim territories although it was applied with less
stringent conditions on other occasions.
In January 630, Muhammad
set out for Mecca with 10, 000 men. The city submitted without resistance,
except for a skirmish between a few men. Muhammad gave a general amnesty
and forbade pillage…”
So as you can see,
our Prophet Muhammad did not carry out mass executions as you claim. I
don’t even know where you got your information, but I got all of the
above straight out the source—the 16 volume Encyclopedia Judaica. But
since you don’t agree with what they say, I suppose that you will call
them apologists, too.
Converts
Briefly, I would just
like to say that a typical method of promoting hatred is to take the most
infamous examples of a culture or people and promote them as indicative of
everyone. When you bring up names like Jose Padilla (who, by the way, was
never charged with a crime, and there is no evidence that he actually had
the means of detonating a “dirty bomb,”) you are painting all of us as
terrorists. If you wish to bring up an example of what a Muslims should be
like, why don’t you mention the first four Caliphs, who were companions
of the Prophet? The Prophet himself was a role model to both men and women
from all cultures. Jose Padilla is an extremist. An extremist, by
definition, does not represent the mainstream. The Prophet Muhammad
demanded that all Muslims be loyal to the majority (Sahih,
Ibn Ma’Jah; also Ibn Hibban, ‘Mawarid adh-dham’an’ p.47, on the
authority of Zaid ibn Thabit, the Prophet’s famous secretary)
As for your question
who converts to Islam, here is a nice story for you:
Rome's Envoy to Saudi Arabia Converts to Islam
by Luke Baker, CNN, November 26 2001 CE
Italy's ambassador to Saudi Arabia has converted to Islam, the
second time in seven years that an envoy of Rome to the land of Mecca
has adopted its religion.
Cardilli's change of faith follows years of study of Islam. A
graduate in oriental culture and languages from the University of Naples,
Cardilli has spent much of his 33-year diplomatic career in the Muslim
world.
The conversion of Cardilli -- who is married with two children --
follows the move to Islam made by Mario Scialoja, Italian ambassador to
the Arab kingdom in 1994-95, who has since left the foreign service and is
head of Italy's Muslim League.
Call me Crazy Ali, but try as you may to convince people that Islam
is a violent religion, apparently the last two ambassadors to Saudi Arabia
didn’t think so. Last time I checked, Ambassadors were there to help
avoid conflict. So there are some better examples of intelligent people
converting to Islam, than the
infamous ones you bring up. You are a liar Ali, because you mislead people
into thinking that because people like Jose Padilla embrace Islam, then
that is indicitave of all Muslims. That is much like saying that the David
Koresh, Branch-Davidian from Waco, Texas, is indicative of all Christians.
Final
Comments:
Practically
speaking, I cannot continue to write these lengthy responses. I would like
to thank you all for your time and interest in my letters, and I am
actually appreciative of this experience since I have learned so
much—not from Ali, but from the many reference books I read during the
course of our dialogue. However, I have lost the desire to continue on,
since Ali insists on using biased sources to support his claims, as I have
proven above. Therefore, I have decided that since the end of every trial
has its closing arguments, we should have these as well. Below are my
closing arguments. I will not bother to reply to Ali’s closing
arguments. It is time for all of you to make your minds up.
First
of all, let me say that I love you all and I wish you all peace and health
in your lives. I have no hatred at all towards any one of you, including
Mr. Sina. As a Muslim, I am taught to love even those who oppose me and to
try to make the WHOLE truth available to them, as opposed to Ali’s
selective truths mixed in with lies and glued together by his flawed
logic. I hope that God has mercy on all of your souls, and I implore you
to stop your active participation in smearing the name of Islam.
Islam
means conforming your actions to the will of God. Being a good Muslim
means being able to manifest your sincerity into good deeds. It is a
tremendous struggle and a difficult one, but a rewarding one as well. Ever
since I have become a practicing Muslim, I have felt nothing but peace in
my heart and wisdom in my mind, and I invite you all to learn more about
Islam from encyclopedias and from reputable scholars, and not rely on
sources such as this clearly prejudiced website.
Muslims
are not taught to be violent. As any Muslim will tell you, we abhor the
senseless violence we see everyday. If that violence is maliciously and
persistently directed at us, however, we must fight back until the
hostilities cease. If we see injustice occur to the poor and
disadvantaged, we must fight against it as well. The concept of war in
Islam is not centered around territorial gain or other materialistic
causes. It centers around fighting for your convictions when all diplomacy
has failed.
Some
of you are adamantly opposed to all forms of violence, under all
circumstances without exception. This is not practical in the world we
live in. Violence is a reality. Muslims are taught to avoid it as much as
possible, but when cornered we will fight until a resolution—ultimately
peaceful—has been reached. To fight in the way of a lasting justice and
peace—whether through the pen or the sword-- is something that we will
not apologize for.
Some
of you are Christians and Jews that come here to smear our faith since you
think that your religions are somehow better than Islam. My response to
you is that that is a prideful view, and that you should worry about your
own souls and the day of judgment, rather than attempt to show us “the
error of our ways.” Muslims are not concerned with converting Jews or
Christians as much as they are concerned with bettering their own souls,
so I advise you to do the same. We all believe in the same God. We all
respect the prophetic lifestyle. We all strive to do good deeds. Let us
focus on the path that the prophets tread, do it with sincerity, and let
God decide between us on that inevitable last day-- the day when we will
accept total responsibility for our actions and our words. The last day of
judgment is the day we all believe in, the day when good deeds will be the
only currency acceptable to God.
Some
of you are atheists. To you, all I have to say is that I suggest you
reflect longer about the existence of God (as the Quran repeatedly asks of
all humans). Do not make the mistake of thinking that because modern
scholarship has discredited the Bible, that ALL religion is nonsense. The
Quran is the most preserved holy book available to us and is nothing like
the Bible, in content, history, or development. As I mentioned before,
even cavemen believed in religion. Belief in a higher order is inside all
of us. If you do not think so, you are DENYING it. This is the real
meaning of kafir—to conceal—to conceal your innate belief in God.
Instead of doing the best you can to discredit all proof of God, I suggest
you do the best you can to comprehend his proofs. However, nothing I say
can make some of you believe, so to you, I pray for your souls and warn
you of a day that you will wish you had believed in our creator and judge.
God is real, folks. Do not make the mistake of assuming that since you
cannot see him, he does not exist. Do not make the other mistake of
thinking that most of humanity are stupid sheep for believing in God,
either. Many of us have thought very hard about God, and we have come to
the conclusion that there is something up there. 10, 000 years ago, a man
named Noah thought so. Several thousand years later, a man named Abraham
thought so. Moses thought so, Jesus thought so, and Muhammad thought so.
These were the most influential people in history. I suggest you read as
much as you can about their messages, and come to a more informed
conclusion about the existence of God.
Some
of you are polytheists. To you I say that you should stop worshipping
idols, as nothing can adequately symbolize or encapsulate the infinite
source we all, on some level, try to worship. Painted stones are poor
symbols for an Infinite power. Remember that it is mathematically,
philosophically, and spiritually impossible to divide infinity. Whatever
gods you try to worship are inherently limited by the presence of the
other gods. There can only be one infinity. Polytheism and animism are
usually culturally particular. There is no polytheistic religion that is a
world religion (practiced by people all over the world.). The closest is
Hinduism, which is largely confined to India, and it is a religion that
teaches discrimination through the caste system. Polytheism is largely
tribal, and relatively primitive, compared to the complex theologies of
the monotheistic religions. Do not be a polytheist simply because your
father was one. Think for yourself and ask yourself why the world at large
does not believe in your polytheistic religion.
To
all the people who only believe in science and evolution I say this:
Science has its limitations and there are many things that cannot be
explained in purely scientific terms. There is no mathematical formula or
equation that can define my personality. Science cannot define the
happiness my heart feels when I pray or the suffering of a woman in
Somalia when she can’t find food for her children. There are some things
that can only be understood or sensed by our spiritual senses and can only
be put in spiritual, as opposed to strictly intellectual, terms.
In this sense, religion provides us with our spiritual sustenance,
and gives us the inclination to think about a higher purpose for our
limited time here on earth. Do not fill your time hating Islam, for no
other reason that there are better and more productive things for you to
do with your time.
Furthermore,
if you believe in evolution (which I personally believe in as well, seeing
how much of it is not inconsistent with Islam), and have read the
newspapers lately, two new discoveries in Chad have shaken up the entire
theory of evolution. We are not certain how evolution works, and we do not
have all the answers. It is a fact that life adapts to its surroundings,
but that is only one component of the many theories of evolution that
scientists have today. Islam can accommodate theories of both evolution
and creation. Two famous writers in the Islamic world, Dr. Maurice
Bucaille (“What is the Origin of Man,”) and Harun Yahya (Evolution
Deceit), have contributed well-reasoned and opposing arguments to the
Muslim debate on evolution.
As
for people that believe in God, but do not follow a particular religion,
then you are relying on your limited human ability to judge what is right
and wrong, effectively defeating the purpose of God’s divine guidance.
Organized religion is here for us to judge between right and wrong in our
lives and to give us a structured path to God’s forgiveness. It is all
or nothing. Either you believe in your religion and everything that comes
with it, or you don’t and you deprive yourself of the divine guidance
that comes with its message, and the community of believers that you
should belong to.
Monotheistic
religions are separated only by which prophet a person wishes to follow,
or as is more often the case, has been taught to follow. Jews follow
Moses, Christians follow Jesus, and Muslims follow all of them. Muslims,
however, believe that the message that the Prophet Muhammad brought has
been the most well preserved—a fact that is supported by history—and
thus, find good reason to rely on his words and way of life over the
teachings of other prophets. If the Jews had preserved the message of God
faithfully, why did Jesus come to admonish them for their transgressions
and seek to restore the message of God to the people of Israel? But
Jesus’ message has also been perverted from its original form, by the
doings of various religious councils (especially the Council of Nicea and
Trent, the corruption of the Popes, and omissions, changes, and various
“versions” of the Bible) and various doctrines that are totally alien
to the teachings of Jesus, such as the introduction of the concept of the
Trinity by St. Athanasius 4 centuries after Jesus left this world.
Furthermore, as Christianity spread, the priesthood found it necessary to
compromise some of its teachings with pagan customs of the new lands it
conquered in order to promote conversion (which was often forced, as in
the case of Christianity in the “new world” of the Western
Hemisphere). Perhaps this is why Christmas and Easter were on the same
days as the Pagan festivals of the Roman Gods (where we got the name “Sun-day”
from), the Babylonian Gods (Marduk on December 25th), and the
Saxon gods (Eastre, the Goddess of rebirth).
Islam,
however, has been uncorrupted by the pen of subsequent generations. Agree
with its ideas or not, the fact remains that the words of the Quran has
never been changed. It is a timeless message that billions of people
adhered to and found profound and progressive truth in. The Islamic
civilization succeeded while Europe was plunged in ignorance, the Americas
were practicing human sacrifice, and the East was worshipping idols and
kings. The Islamic civilization succeeded because the Quran commanded
Muslims to think.
Other
religions have a priesthood. The role of a priest for many religions was
to act as an intermediary between the believer and the higher power/s.
Often times, priests were also the scholars and learned men of a society.
This was largely because they were taught to read. Not only did they read,
but they learned how to read in order to read spiritual texts, thereby
increasing both their mental and spiritual knowledge at the same time.
Reading is something we now take for granted. But back then, as it is now,
being illiterate was a form of slavery. The priesthood in Christianity
developed because not everyone could read. The priest read parts of the
Bible to the congregation and often served as its spiritual anchor. The
words of the priest were thus very important, as was the priests
interpretation of what he read. Often times, his interpretation was passed
off as God’s “Truth.” This is one of the main reasons why there are
so many different sects in Christianity: There are many charismatic
leaders who do not necessarily see eye to eye, and because the Bibles they
are reading are translations, the word choice is ambiguous enough to allow
room for disagreement and outright conflict.
These
problems are not present in Islam. Islamic civilization grew because all
Muslims were commanded to be literate, especially in order to read the
Quran. In Islam, knowledge is the bedrock of faith. There are no priests
because we do not need anyone to interpret the incredibly clear message of
the Quran. There are many interpretations to any verse in the Quran, but
the vast majority do not seek to contradict each other, but rather be
included on the list and to complement other interpretations. Very often,
there is agreement. Furthermore, one finds that there is very little to
actually interpret because the commands in the Quran are so clear: excel
in every respect, remember God, be internally and externally devoted to
Him, and do good works. Islam isn’t difficult to understand. But
understanding can only come through knowledge, and knowledge can only be
cultivated through thought, and this is why the Quran commands us to
think. Islamic history is not like the history of the other religions,
because Islam commanded widespread literacy and encouraged people to think
for themselves. This is often why Islam is credited with forming the
platform for the Renissance and Enlightenment: We learned that thinking
independently was important almost 1000 years before Europe did. Muslim
thinkers invented the scientific method—which is essentially a method of
rethinking everything.
Your
will should be based your knowledge and reasoning. Islam means submission
to God’s will. That is what God taught Adam: how Adam should use his
will to obey God’s will. It also what God meant for his descendants. To
believe in Islam is to acknowledge that you were created by God, and to
pay tribute to a being that has boundless knowledge and power. It is to
worship your creator. Unlike other religions, Muslims do not believe they
have a monopoly on God’s good favor. Jews believe they are the chosen
people, and that the rest will burn in Hell. Christians believe that if
you do not accept Jesus Christ dying for our sins on the cross, you will
burn in Hell. Muslims believe that no one died for your sins, no one is a
chosen over others, and that you will be responsible for your own actions
when the day comes that you stand before God. God will decide who will
burn in hell according to what each person knew, what they believed, and
if they acted according to the knowledge they possessed. God will judge,
because he is the only one fit to judge. That is why we don’t rape
anyone. That is why we don’t force anyone to convert, which would be
pointless anyway, since Islam is a voluntary and sincere submission to
God, not a forced submission. That is why I am here talking to you: To
warn you that everything you do when you close the curtains, everything
you say when you are in front of others, and everything you write in this
forum will be called to account on that day of judgment. Please think more
about the concept of accountability. If you write about Islam out of
intolerance, hatred, or prejudice, God will know. The consequences are the
same if you wrote the same about other religions. God knows why you do the
things you do and will mercifully judge you, but be reminded that he is
strict in his punishment, and knows your heart and intentions well.
During
the time that I have visited this forum, I have heard venom from the lips
of each and every one of you. You have done everything possible to blame
Islam for every ill that you see in Muslim countries, from history all the
way to the present. I can only do my best to remind you to separate
between the peaceful teachings of Islam and the violence that is
improperly committed in its name by selfish people motivated by their own
agendas. Religion is a powerful unifier and a powerful divider. Please do
not associate Saddam Hussein with us. Do not associate these dictators and
extremists with the teachings of Islam. Islam has no desire to see people
suffering in any way. Islam has no desire to harm others. In fact, Islam
was a reformist, if not revolutionary, message to the ignorance prevalent
in the world in the 7th century. It was revealed in order to
help humanity. This is the main goal of our religion and it succeeded in
doing so, until colonialism and its subsequent dictatorship/puppet
governments chose to silence the voices of Islam violently. Almost every
“Muslim” country is a dictatorship that crushes dissent. And almost
everyone is supported in some way by the US or its allies, such as
Algeria, Saudia Arabia, or Egypt. In Algeria, for example, democratic
elections led to a victory by Islamic groups. The military made short work
of this success, a military that was supported by France, which is
supposed to be a democratic country. The West does not support democracy
in Muslim countries, because if the people of these countries really could
participate in the political process, there would be no guarantee that the
policies they formulate would benefit the West, especially in today’s
political climate. By keeping dictators in these (or any) country, the
countries of the West can ensure that they can impose their will through
the proxy leaders they support, a support which, not surprisingly, takes
its form mainly through military aid.
Islamic
extremism is a product of these repressive regimes, and a simple survey of
Muslim countries will show that the level of Islamic extremism is
proportionate to the level of suppressed democracy. It is the same as the
Chiapas Indians fighting in Mexico. It is the same as the ANC that Nelson
Mandela led 25 years ago. Without access to democracy, there will be a
backlash by the disenfranchised.
Extremism
exists in the Muslim world because Islam teaches that tyrants have no
right to govern, and must be removed—if not peacefully, then through
Jihad, because a goal of Jihad is meant to restore some semblance of
justice to society. The poverty and human rights abuses you see are not
due to Islam, they are due to the incredible corruption of these
dictatorships. Islam strives to fight against this, but then again, these
dictators know that, and crack down on Muslims (who are often labeled
under the blanket term “militants” or “fundamentalists.”) simply
for challenging the status quo. The struggle turns violent when their
voices are brutally and persistently repressed, as in the case of Algeria,
Turkey, and Egypt. If violence is not acceptable, then how do you propose
to rid the world of Saddam Hussein’s regime? By asking nicely? By
conducting a sit in? If China slaughtered its own citizens in the
Tienneamen Square sit-in without compunction, you can be assured that
Saddam (or any other dictator) will do the same, and even kill the
families of all involved. Peaceful opposition is not possible sometimes
and as the Quran rightly says: oppression is worse than (and often leads
to) slaughter, so fight oppression, even with your lives if you must.
Applying the methods of the US Civil Rights movement would be to take it
out of historical and socio-politcal context. At the time, America was
largely a country based on the rule of law, with at least a symbolic
respect for human rights, and under the scrutiny of the world and its own
press. None of these conditions are present in Iraq or other repressive
regimes. Therefore, sit-ins and labor-strikes and any other form of
opposition are often suppressed, and in the most brutal way possible, in
order to serve as a deterrent to other people wishing to fight for their
rights. Islam fights against all of this. Islam wants freedom. Islam wants
democracy. Islam wants human rights to prevail.
I
hope that you all approach Islam with a more open mind. It seems that many
of you have already made up your minds and are here in order to confirm
your own prejudices. Ali Sina is a person who does not even attempt to
conceal his seething hatred for Islam. Why would you listen to such a
person? You say that he is telling the truth about Islam, but in fact, he
is not—he is just telling you the stories you don’t read in many
books. He claims that you don’t find these stories in books because the
authors are apologists, but in fact, you will not find these stories in
books because they are not credible.
I
just hope that you all see the harm in Mr. Sina’s message of
intolerance. It is harmful both for society and for your own mind. Please
stop hating Islam and stop frequenting these extremist sites. Please learn
about Islam from a less one-sided source. Learn about Islam in order to
know that God’s final message to humanity is one of peace and
progression, and not the evil message that Ali Sina wants you to think it
is. My friends, Ali is lying to you so he can get you to hate Islam as
well. I know you see what he is doing. I know you are all smarter than
that.
Warmly,
Wissam Nasr
< back 1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| 6 | 7
next >
|
