From: kamil arif
Balance in life is an ideal obligation
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 21:21:36
Balance in every aspect of life
is an ideal obligation. Since a man is very vulnerable to the undeniable
effects of emotions, sentiments, excitements, liking, biases on our
personality so it is up to a man to avoid getting submerged in these
effects and must strike a balance between them and the observations
based on logic and reality. Although maintaining balance is sometimes
become difficult yet a person should try to keep himself closer to that
balance line and should not stray too much from that reference line. As
soon as a person start getting away from that balance line he starts
loosing his creditability in every respect. His statements also start
loosing weight. If he does not check this trend he might fall in an area
known as extremism. Extremist behaviour in any aspect of life is a
dangerous sign. Self-analysis is most difficult craft in the life.
Riding on the current emotions, the word "Extremism" is
largely attributed to the Muslims and rightly so but if we analyze
ourselves, we definitely find some persons in all spheres of life having
Even in our atheist community we
have a distinct boundary between a balanced and the extremist atheists.
What happens is that when one was a balanced man, his statements carry
weight and we start following him and after sometime he turned extremist
but because either of his track record or not realizing we keep on
following him. This is a not at all an acceptable behaviour.
Dr Sina has a impressive work.
He really worked hard and certainly pointed out certain aspects, which
need attention. He has certainly carried out a lot of research. He has
very well exploited the weak links in Islam. But remember nobody is
ideal. One got to be fair, no doubt he has interpreted certain verses in
a way which suited to his explanation. He has used a lot of statements
and verses out of context to prove his point as well. He has
"conveniently" ignore certain aspects like he has taken
references from some of the books, which are not even considered
authentic amongst a lot of Muslim sects. He must also be knowing that
history from where he has taken the references was written much after
the Muhammad and a lot of Muslim rulers afterwards attributed a lot of
bad doings to Muhammad in order justify their illicit deeds. He has also
taken advantage of certain things which are the brainchild of current
illiterate mullahs and widely unacceptable amongst the Muslims as well.
You might disagree but after a
thorough study and consulting a lot of people, to me, this is a very
realistic analysis. Do you still believe explaining weak links is a big
deal at all? Realistically speaking, to find negative points whether
from any aspect of life, community, nation or religion is not at all a
very difficult task!!!!
Dr Sina has definitely left that
balance line though he is still not touching that extremist level. But
the dangerous thing is that he is getting farther from the line day by
day and this is of course a dangerous sign. His abusive language and
statements clearly reflecting him being out of balance. I am putting his
very few statements from his site www.faithfreedom.org. Please analyze
for a moment from the human lens and not from religions lens:
"Islam is doomed. My hope was to bring this false doctrine of hate
down and make it collapse from within like communism did, but alas your
hatred is too big and Islam will be brought down like Nazism did. It
will be bloody and destructive" "The good news is that this
will end Islam forever, but the cost will be heavy. Millions if not
billions will die and mostly they will be Muslims." "You
people are blind. You are fool. You are full of hate" "Those
who believe in this cult of hate are potential terrorists" "I
said long time ago that many of us will see the end of Islam in our own
lifetime. Now I am more convinced than ever." These are very few
examples. There are certainly many others. His continuous use of abusive
language in fact start irritating the readers instead of convincing him.
Thank you very much for your
Ali Sina Responds:
It is important to note that the
apologists of Islam come in all shapes and forms. In fact they even pose
as atheists to make themselves sound impartial and their views
objective. However this is not a new trick.
We can recall the story of the
assassination of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, the young, handsome and talented
leader of the Bani Nadir who was deceived by Maslama and then
VOLUME 5, #369
this hadith we read that Muhammad complained of Ka’b for
badmouthing him in his poetries and asked his followers "Who is
willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His
Maslama gets up and asks
Muhammad to allow him to lie in order to deceive Ka’b. Muhammad gives
his blessing and Maslams goes to Ka’b and complains of Muhammad
claiming to be tired of Muhammad’s abuses and his tyranny. Ka’b is
deceived and as soon as he steps out of his house, he is attacked and
Today we have Muslim apologists
who even pose as atheists to appear unbiased and credible.
Mr. Kamil Arif is still a Muslim
and that is very clear from his line of reasoning. Let me analyze his
criticism of me line by line in order to answer to all of them:
Mr. Kamil Arif writes:
doubt he has interpreted certain verses in a way which suited to his
What are those certain verses
that I have interpreted in a way to suit my explanation? Are there other
explanations? A verse can be explained in a variety of ways, but only
one of them is the right one. Of course if a verse can mean several
things then the divine guidance fails to be of guidance. If you ask a
direction from someone and he points his right and left hands to two
different directions you will not think of that person as a trustworthy
guide but rather a lunatic or a prankster. Also if his directions are so
confused that you could interpret them in any way you please again his
directions fail to be of guidance. The verses claimed to be from God
cannot have several opposing meanings. They must mean one thing only.
The question is which explanation is the correct one. Mr. Kamil Arif
claims I am misinterpreting certain verses. So he must know the correct
explanations of the verses that I misinterpret. May I ask Mr. Arif to
tell us exactly which verses I have misinterpreted and what is the
correct significance of those verses? Let us put our money where our
mouth is. We can’t just throw a stone and walk away.
has used a lot of statements and verses out of context to prove his
point as well.”
Which verses I have used out of
the context and would Mr. Arif guide us to the correct context of those
has "conveniently" ignored certain aspects like he has taken
references from some of the books, which are not even considered
authentic amongst a lot of Muslim sects."
The books I use most are the
Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. These books are considered Sahih
(authentic) by the majority of the Muslims. The Shiites do not consider
them as authentic and they have fabricated their own books of hadiths.
The major book of Shiite hadith is Baharul Avwar compiled by Majlesi who
was born in the year 1037 Hejia. Obviously we can’t rely on his
collection of hadiths that were gathered more than a thousand years
after the death of Muhammad. So Bukhari and Muslim are more credible
than any other collection of hadith. The fact that Shiits do not agree,
does not invalidate those hadiths.
Of course one should not accept
ALL the hadiths in the collection of Bukahri and Muslim. Some of them
are clearly fabrications. For example we have hadiths that speak of the
miracles attributed to Muhammad. These hadiths are all false because
Quran is clear in the fact that Muhammad did not produce any miracles
and his only miracle is the Quran itself.
Despite this, these hadiths are
our only contact with the historic Muhammad. The fact is that beside
these hadiths and the early books of history of Islam such as Sirat
Rasoul, al Waqidi and Tabari we do not have any other source on the
biography of Muhammad. There is no need to believe every word in these
books but as a whole they provide a fairly clear image of Muhammad. That
image is an image of a tyrant, a mentally disturbed monster and not a
prophet of God. There is no alternative to that image, unless you want
to rely on the books written by the modern day apologists. In that case
it is important to ask what sources these later apologists have used.
must also be knowing that history from where he has taken the
references was written much after the Muhammad and a lot of Muslim
rulers afterwards attributed a lot of bad doings to Muhammad in order
justify their illicit deeds."
If the entire history of
Muhammad is false then how can we know that he actually existed? Do we
have a different version of history? What really happened to the Bani
Qurayza for example? Did Muhammad massacre all of them cold bloodedly as
the books of history and hadith say or he did not? What about Kheibar?
Did he raid that town without any warning when people had gone after
their daily business and were least expecting, killing all the unarmed
men, looting their belongings and enslaving their women and children or
not. Why is it that only the incriminating versions of the history
survived and there is no mention of the “real” history of Islam
where Muhammad was benevolent, just and kind?
The fact that some of the
Muslims deny the early history of Islam is in a sense a positive thing.
It shows that at least this group of Muslims is embarrassed of what
their prophet did. However they do so at the expense of honesty. I have
not yet resolved which kind of Muslims are better: Those who are
truthful and support the terrorists or those who lie and claim Islam is
a religion of peace?
also taken advantage of certain things which are the brainchild of
current illiterate mullahs and widely unacceptable amongst the Muslims
Mr. Kamil Arif wants us to
believe that most of the nonsense uttered by the Mullahs are not in the
Quran at all and do not exist in Islam. This is a lame excuse. First I
ask him, why he does not confront these “illiterate Mullahs” and
show them their errors? Why is it that all these “illiterate”
Mullahs, coming from all Islamic countries say the same things? If they
are not basing their views on the Qruran, what secret book they read?
How is it that these Mullahs who have studied decades to earn their
degree, are illiterate when it comes to Islam and people such as Mr.
Arif who probably have not read the Quran and know very little about
hadith are learned and know better?
This claim is truly hilarious.
Now we have even westerners such as the
secretary of state Mr. Colin Powell and the French
interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, who claim that Mullahs do not
know the real Islam and they (these western politicians who have not
read the Quran) know better and that Islam is not a violent religion but
a religion of peace.
Arif’s statement claiming that the violent and absurd teachings of
Islam prevalent amongst Muslims is the “brainchild of current
illiterate mullahs” is ludicrous to say the least and proves he has
not read the Quran and is not familiar with the hadith. Mr. Arif, along
with many other Muslims lives in lalaland. The Islam that he envisions
does not exist anywhere except in his imagination. The real Islam is the
Islam of Muhammad and you can learn it only by reading the Quran and the
early history of its author.
Arif accuses me of “explaining the weak links”. Can he please tell
us what the “strong” links are? And why the verses that I quote and
the stories that I cite are weak? Who can decide which verses of the
Quran are weak and which ones are strong? Is this left to the criteria
of the individuals? Are Mr. Arif and other modern apologists of Islam
authorized to pick and choose which verses are weak and which ones are
are lame excuses. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible I urge
Mr. Arif to read the Quran and see for himself the level of barbarity
and stupidity of that book. It should be only embarrassing for educated
people such as him to follow a stupid charlatan such as Muhammad. It is
just a shame that people such as Mr. Arif, who can think and reason and
are educated in the West, and supposedly familiar with secular humanism
are so reluctant to think on their own and believe in the lies of a
mentally sick man of the 7th century even though this man’s
lack of understanding is glaringly obvious through his foolish
Arif calls me an extremist for predicting end of Islam. That is another
proof that he has no clue what Islam is. Islam cannot be reformed. I
have shown that time and again. It is much easier to reform Nazism and
make it a peaceful and ecumenical ideology than reforming Islam. Our
main obstacle is the Qruan – the very Quran that is perfectly
understood by the Mullahs
but its meaning eludes our friend Mr. Kamil Arif, not because it is
difficult but because he has not read it.
the question is “WHY?” Why
even try to reform Islam? What is there to salvage? Was Muhammad a
messenger of God by any chance? If so then sure we should do everything
possible to recover the purity of its message. But when we read the
Quran, we see this book is a textbook of hate and violence. When we read
the history of Muhammad we see this man was a cult leader far worse than
David Koresh and Jim Johns. What is there to salvage? Why preserve a
religion built by a charlatan liar and a criminal?
views are not extremists. I am speaking the truth. If what I say is not
true, please show my errors and I promised I will remove the
faithfreedom.org from the Internet. If what I say is true then there is
no reason to keep Islam alive even though we miraculously manage to
cannot be reformed
is the brainchild of a pathological narcissist and cult leader. All we
have to do is throw it in the garbage bin of the history and forget