|
It has become a rule by Islamic
apologist, to tell the historical
context of the verses of Koran which
teaches violence, jihad, killings of
Kafir or infidels etc and say that
they were meant and were meaningful
in the historical context only as
done by Reza Sami in his (or her)
reply. Interestingly, he says that
Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war
on the infidels who dwell around
you" says to fight the polytheist
Arabs who where dwelling around
them, and not Hindus about whom
"Prophet" was not aware. Sami
probably wants to tell us that we
are now safe, and wont be killed by
any Muslims, as we are not
polytheist Arabs or may be that
"historical context" is not there!
There is no denying to the fact that
Islam spread by sword and not
through the peaceful assimilation
like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism
etc. And Sami if you really feel
that such verses has no utility now
then why don't they be deleted from
the Koran, as suggested by someone.
There are plethora of such verses
scattered all over the Koran which
if plainly read would mean violence.
In fact today hardliner Muslims are
those who read Koran in transparent
manner. It is not the ability of
every individual to see the hidden
meaning with the "historical
context". An interesting reference
from a web page:
K K Pradeep , Chennai
"Verses of violence are taken out of
context."
The Muslim Game:
Verses like, "Slay the infidels
wherever ye find them," were issued
during times of war, according to
the apologists. They accuse critics
who use Qur'anic verses to discredit
Islam of engaging in
"cherry-picking" (pulling verses out
of context to support a position,
and ignoring others that may
mitigate it).
The Muslims who rely on this
argument often leave the impression
that the Qur'an is full of verses of
peace, tolerance and universal
brotherhood, with only a small
handful that say otherwise. Their
gullible audience may also assume
that the context of each violent
verse is surrounded by obvious
constraints in the surrounding text
which bind it to a particular place
and time (as is the case with many
Old Testament passages).
The Truth:
The truth, unfortunately, is just
the opposite. This is why new
Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who
begin studying the Qur'an and Hadith,
are often confronted with an array
of disclaimers and warnings by
well-meaning Muslims who caution
that it takes "years of study" to
fully understand the meaning of
certain passages. Neophytes are
encouraged to seek the counseling of
a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help
them along" with interpreting what
they read.
It is not the verses of violence
that are rare, however, it is the
ones of peace and tolerance. Neither
is the "historical context" of these
verses of violence at all obvious
from the surrounding text (in most
cases).
In the Qur'an, ideas and topics
often seem to come from nowhere,
emerging almost at random in a
jumbled mess that bears no
consistent or coherent stream of
thought. But, with external
references to the Hadith and early
biographies of Muhammad's life, it
is usually possible to determine
when a Qur'anic verse was "handed
down from Allah," and what it may
have meant to the Muslims at the
time. This is what apologists
opportunistically refer to as
"historical context." They contend
that such verses are merely a part
of history and not intended as
imperatives to present-day Muslims.
But "historical context" cuts both
ways. If any verse is a product of
history, then they all are. Indeed,
there is not a verse in the Qur'an
that was not given at a particular
time to address a particular
situation in Muhammad's life,
whether he wanted to conquer the
tribe next door and needed a
"revelation" from Allah spurring his
people to war, or if needed the same
type of "revelation" to satisfy his
lust for more women (free of
complaint from his other wives).
Here is the irony of the
"cherry-picking" argument: Those who
use "historical context" against
their detractors nearly always
engage in cherry-picking of their
own by choosing which verses they
apply "historical context" to and
which they prefer to hold above such
tactics of mitigation.
Islamic purists do not engage in
such games. Not only do they know
that the verses of Jihad are more
numerous and authoritative
(abrogating the earlier ones), they
also hold the entire Qur'an to be
the eternal and literal word of
Allah. and this is what often makes
them so dangerous. - Pradeep
Kumar - Oct. 18, 2007
Looks like the masses have had too
much of opium here. Some people
prefer high emotional drama, some
like stunts, etc. The topic of
discussion can be anything based on
individual's choice. However, we
must always consider the
time/place/audience before we
speak/write. Some topics are
exclusively for grown-ups, some
others are more suitable for a
private environment, and other
(thankfully, the largest set) topics
is public and suitable for all
environments.
Let us be polite to each other (if
it does not violate the creed). -
Kumod Jha - Oct. 18, 2007
Mr. Ashok Nagar,
You wrote, "Your desperate attempt
to cover up the real face of the
Muslim world and their well known
mistreatment of non-Muslims/women
over the ages is not an educated
behavior on your behalf."
Excuse me, but I'm a Muslim woman so
let me speak on our own behalf,
thank you.
Just like all of the other fellow
Muslim women I know, we are not
mistreated by our men. Unfortunately
sometimes (regardless of their
religion) men do mistreat their
women –India is not an exception to
this- and if they do so, there is
absolutely no excusing or justifying
it. Islam gives me rights as a
woman, and it most definitely
doesn't allow that I be mistreated.
If someone were to do such a thing,
I hope you realize that it isn't the
religion to blame, but the man who
is doing it. We must learn to
separate some cultural practices
from Islamic ones, as they're not
always the same.
The "real face" of Islam is indeed
peaceful, and Sami Reza was correct
in stating so.
You added, "Muslims of the world
rejoiced and celebrated the attack
on the New York Trade Center, and
the destruction and killing of
innocent people."
Not true. I am a Muslim-American,
and the attacks on my country were
not celebrated; they have been
condemned from Muslims all over the
world! Muslims have denounced
terrorism again and again, but I
think because we don't have one
unified person speaking on behalf of
us acting as a formal
representative, many non-Muslims say
that they haven't heard Muslims
denouncing terrorism. But there have
been denunciations of terrorism from
Muslim leaders all over the world,
and here are just a few:
http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=101271&d=17&m=9&y=2007&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html
In addition, the Muslim Student
Association (MSA), which I am a part
of, has issued many statements on
this matter, including one just this
year, on the anniversary of
September 11th: "The MSA National
Executive Committee joins our nation
today in honoring those who lost
their lives in the tragic events of
September 11, their grieving
families and friends, and the brave
men and women whose sacrifice we
shall never forget.
As American and Canadian Muslims, we
reiterate our condemnation of
terrorism in all forms. As
ambassadors of Islam on campus, MSAs
continue to inform fellow students
about the true message of Islam and
work to uphold the human and
constitutional values of social
justice, community service, and
empowerment through education,
tolerance, and peace.
The MSA National 2007-2008 Executive
Committee"
(http://www.msanational.org/news/7/71/)
You mentioned that you've "witnessed
so called decent educated Muslims in
the west cheering and praising the
criminal acts of Muslim hijackers of
9/11." Where and when did you
witness this? It's hard for me to
believe you when you say this, but
at least now right here you see a
"decent educated Muslim" from the
west condemning the criminal acts of
the 9/11 hijackers, and saying what
they did was completely un-Islamic.
You say that we'd be running for our
lives is we spoke out against
terrorists in public, but here I've
showed you how many Muslims have
indeed spoken out against it, and
there's no reason to hide. We need
to speak out against such things.
Terrorism is clearly wrong, and not
allowed in Islam (killing innocents
is directly going against the
teachings of Islam). You say
"Islamic terrorism arises from
religious tenets and dictates," but
this is completely wrong; we are not
told "to kill others even if they do
not belong to their religion".
Terrorism roots are many times (such
as in Iraq or Palestine) due to
social injustice -though there's
never, ever any excuse for undue
violence.
Qur'an does not teach us "how to
terrorize non-Muslims", as it speaks
of peace (you might be surprised if
you read it in full, instead of
random verses here and there that
you use to try and prove your
point). You went on to say Islam "is
the only religion that teaches
killing of human beings," but Qur'an
speaks of how we have a right to
defend ourselves against attackers,
not that we can go around killing
whenever we feel like it! I'm not
sure what religion you profess, (nor
does it matter, I suppose, because
it seems to be only one of hatred),
but a few of the sites you directed
people to were Christian websites.
So I wonder, have you read the
Bible? Specifically the Old
Testament verses, or do you only
like to take Qur'anic quotes out of
context and turn a blind eye to
verses that "teach violence" from
other religions? You might find some
interesting things in there,
including verses in the Old
Testament that call for the death of
many, including those who "decided
to renegade," as you put it.
"Besides Quran, there is no religion
in this world that teaches terrorism
and killings in such a graphic
detail," you're quite wrong here, as
it might open your eyes when you
read the Bible, but this isn't to
say that I think the Bible is a
violent book. In full context, it's
verses also call for peace, not
violence. You completely take the
Qur'anic verses out of context and
don't see the message of Islam, but
you fail to realize that you can do
that with many other religious books
as well, and in doing so you're not
fairly representing the religion
itself. I am very aware of exactly
what "Quran teaches," and I'm afraid
it is the people like you who aren't
aware and make it into something it
isn't.
You incorrectly stated, "no wonder
many people were forced to convert
to it, and many did just out of
sheer fear." Perhaps you made this
statement out of sheer ignorance. My
Bihari ancestors were not forced to
convert, but they did so because
they loved the beautiful message of
Islam.
You explained how you, "really feel
sorry for Hindus who were forcibly
or otherwise converted to Islam." No
need to feel sorry for my ancestors,
really. They converted to Islam
because they wanted to. As for
forceful conversions, I want to make
it clear to you that Islam forbids
imposing religion on others: in
verse 2:256 of the Qur'an; God said
"Let there be no compulsion
(forcefulness) in religion: Truth
stands out clear from Error." Verse
10:99-100 goes on to say, "If it had
been thy Lord's Will, they would all
have believed, all who are on earth!
Wilt thou then compel mankind,
against their will, to believe? No
soul can believe, except by the will
of Allah."
Qur'an says it is haraam to force
religion on others against their
will, as it is only Allah who causes
people to believe. If Muslims force
religious conversion on others, they
are going against the teachings of
Islam when doing so and will be held
accountable for it. We're supposed
to give the message and if others
accept Islam that's great, but if
not that's fine too, and we should
all respect each other as human
beings and live in peace.
You said, "I feel sorry for my
countrymen who long ago were
converted to this kind Muslim
religion, by force or by trick, or
otherwise. It is not too late for
our Muslim countrymen to
reconsider."
Really, no need to feel sorry for
us, because we love Islam. As for
your invitation on considering
leaving this beautiful religion, I
say No thank you. I love Islam, and
it's here to stay.
You bring up Rushdie's book and say
it has the "truth about Islam," but
I think you needed to be reminded
how it's a book of fiction that
includes a story about Indian actors
and a Bollywood superstar, not
"facts about Islam".
You take it even further by
encouraging others to read a book
written by a non-Muslim about how
horrible Islam is, and direct people
to numerous Islamophobic websites
dedicated to further promoting
hatred and ignorance.
Thank you for calling me and my
people uncivilized animals because
we are Muslims; how considerate and
thoughtful of you. Thank you for
encouraging hatred towards us
Muslims. It is you, Mr. Ashok Nagar,
who needs the education lesson on
tolerance.
'And the servants of (Allah) Most
Gracious are those who walk on the
earth in humility, and when the
ignorant address them, they say,
'Peace!'
(Qur'an 25:63) - Miriam Hoda -
Oct. 18, 2007
Dear Miriam Hoda,
You sound like a typical – “No, No,
No, …. Because I said So”. What you
say, and what the known facts are
out there, point in opposite
directions. There is a lot of truth
in what the previous writers like
Ashok and Ronkin have said. I also
used to be a Muslim, and now I have
converted back to Hinduism – and I
married a Hindu gentleman. I am
sorry, I don’t agree with you that
Islam is a peaceful religion – as it
is dominated by the criminal and
violent acts of its followers over
the ages since Islam was born. This
religion has driven its followers do
things that crosses all norms in a
civilized society, and now civilized
minds just can’t digest criminal
acts committed by Muslim brothers in
this day and age. It is good that
moderate Muslims try to follow the
moderate teachings of Quran, however
it fades hopelessly in front of the
magnanimity of violent acts
committed by extremist Muslim
brothers (which are not in minority
by any account).
Recently, my Muslim family converted
back to Hinduism. Long ago, our
Hindu forefathers who were poor
farmers in Bengal were coerced and
threatened by local Muslim thugs to
convert to Islam to save their
lives, and Lazza. Recently our
family moved from Bangladesh to
Bihar and converted back to Hindu
religion. We didn’t like the
suffocating darkness of the Islamic
ways, strict confinement of women,
violent teachings, and constant
threats of killing from our
Bangladeshi Muslim brothers for the
idea of converting back to Hinduism.
A couple of comments –
The American Muslim associations,
CAIR operates in Americas and hence
it tries to sweet-coat the dark side
of Islamic teachings, and interprets
Islamic teachings differently as
they try to survive in non-Muslim
West. This type of organization is
not recognized by the Muslims
outside Americas, and mostly
ridiculed.
CAIR states, “We refuse to allow our
faith to be held hostage by the
criminal actions of a tiny minority
acting outside the teachings of both
the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad,
peace be upon him.”
The CAIR does recognize the criminal
actions (terrorism) committed by
Muslim brothers, (which says that
Muslims are committing criminal acts
in the name of religion), but the
fact is that these criminal Muslims
can not be called minority in
number, and so called moderate
Muslims are a laughing stock for
these criminal Muslims. These
criminal actions are in fact guided
by Islamic teachings, (a well known
example happens to be Taliban and
Osama bin Laden). Their criminal
acts are mostly directed towards so
called enemies of Islam (which
includes minority moderate Muslims
like you). Their criminal acts are
so grave that it surpasses all
normal limits. Moderate Muslim’s
condemnation on websites turns out
to be just a lip service, which is
just a way for these Muslims to
protect themselves from ire of
non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries.
Furthermore, if these moderate
Muslims are so serious about
stopping their criminal Muslim
brothers then they should do
substantial things that really
matter instead of just the lip
service of cyber-condemnation.
Anyone can do this without investing
any genuine effort in correcting the
problem. One example can be that
these so-called CAIR type of Muslims
should go to Afghanistan, or
Pakistan or Iran to teach their so
called criminal brothers – the
peaceful teachings of Quran. Other
good things these moderate Muslims
can do is to raise significant funds
to give to the families affected by
the criminal acts of their Muslim
brothers such as 9/11 – but every
one knows that that would be just
impossible as these criminal acts
are committed by our extremist
Muslim brothers very frequently
around the world.
My personal view is that more
Muslims should be encouraged to
convert back to Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, etc., as many in India have
been converted to this Muslim
religion against their will, and now
they have to defend this religion.
"All wrong-doing arises because of
mind. If mind is transformed can
wrong-doing remain?" - Buddha
Salena Das - Oct. 19, 2007
Salena Das,
Islam is indeed a religion of peace.
If Muslims use violence against
innocents, it isn't because of
Islam- in fact Islam forbids us from
hurting innocents, and we are only
allowed to fight in self-defense or
on the behalf of people who are
oppressed. These violent acts caused
by Muslims are indeed in the
minority, as we number over a
billion and a half Muslims
worldwide, and numbers prove that
the overwhelming majority of us are
peaceful people. For some reason,
people only take the actions of
Muslims to reflect upon our
religion, and not the religion of
others. By the same token, I can
come up with all kinds of events
(like the crusades, the Spanish
Inquisition, colonialism just 100
years ago that ruled violently over
90% of the world's Muslims, and the
unjust war Bush is waging right now,
just to name a few...) I can throw
out a date and say, "See what this
Christian did…yes, this is what
Christianity promotes!", but I
won't, because that illustrates
ignorance and the blind grouping of
people. The same goes for people
like you who deny the world's
moderate Muslim majority, attack the
entire religion of Islam as a
problem for the world, and insist
that all conflicts involving Muslims
as the fault of Islam.
You said that your Bangladeshi
family was threatened to convert,
and I already showed Qur'anic verses
that say it is haraam to force
religion on people. They were wrong
in doing so. But you know what?
Muslims are by far not the only ones
who have partaken in this horrible
practice. Here is an example using
your own homeland of Bangladesh:
"From 8th to 12th century, Buddhist
dynasty called Pala empire ruled
Bengal. During that time, majority
of the population in Bengal were
thought to be Buddhists. After Pala
dynasty fell, Sena Dynasty came to
power. Sena rulers were considered
"militant" Hindus that imposed
Hinduism and the caste system
rigidly. When the Islamic invaders
came, many Buddhists and lower caste
Hindus welcomed the invaders and
accepted Islam." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Bangladesh)
The same link above has a quote from
W. W. Hunter in his The Indian
Mussalmans stating, "the greater
part of the peasant population
throughout Eastern Bengal is Muslim.
In those districts of overwhelming
rivers and boundless swamps, the
respectable Hindu community never
admitted the aborigines into their
fold. The Aryan migration southwards
had not penetrated in sufficient
strength into the seaboard and
Deltaic tracts to thoroughly pound
down in the Brahminical mortar the
earlier people of the soil. They
accordingly remained outside the
pale of Hinduism, outcastes fishing
in their remote estuaries, and
reaping hazardous rice crops from
their flooded lands, without social
status and religious rights. So
impure are they that a Brahmin
cannot settle amongst them without a
taint…The Muslims recognized no such
distinctions. They came down upon
the country, sometimes as military
colonists, sometimes as heads of
great reclamation enterprises in the
Deltaic Districts… wherever they
went they spread their faith, partly
by the sword, but chiefly by a bold
appeal to the two great instincts of
the popular heart. The Hindus had
never admitted the amphibious
population of the Delta within the
pale of their community. The Muslims
offered the plenary pledges of Islam
to Brahman and outcaste alike: 'Down
on your knees, every one of you',
preached the fierce missionaries,
before the Almighty, in whose sight
all men are equal, all created
beings as the dust of the earth.
There is no God but the one God, and
His messenger is Muhammad'"
So here we see that in your own
country of origin, there were
militant Hindus who imposed Hinduism
on people, and because of their
harsh enforcement of the caste
system (and other reasons), many of
the lower-caste Bangladeshis
welcomed Islam with open arms
because of Islam's "ideals of
equality, brotherhood, and social
justice." Is this to say that these
Hindus were militant because their
religion says so, and the way they
discriminated against the
lower-caste community by treating
them as outcasts and depriving them
of "social status and religious
rights" is because their Hindu
religion tells them to? No, of
course not! These "militant" Hindus
were doing it for their own
self-interests, not because of their
religion. The
exact same applies to Muslims and
Islam.
As for the "strict confinement of
women" that you wrote about,
Wikipedia also states, "the Hindu
community has many similar issues as
the Muslim community of Bangladesh.
These include women's rights, dowry,
poverty and others." So we see that
it's a community problem, not one
caused by religion.
You wrote your personal views about
us leaving our religion to "convert
back" because it is a religion
practiced by our ancestors, and my
personal view is that such thinking
is completely ridiculous. We don't
need to follow a religion because
that is what our forefathers
practiced, but rather we practice a
religion because we believe in it in
our hearts. Let me again make it
clear that I, like many of my fellow
Muslim brothers and sisters, are not
interested in leaving Islam, as we
love the message of Lailahailallah
MuhammadarRausulAllah.
Ms. Salena Das, to you I say: "To
you your religion, and to me mine."
(Qur'an 109:6) - Miriam Hoda -
Oct. 21, 2007 |
