Ismahan
Levi
Writes to faithfreedom.com team.
May 6 2002
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for the opportunity to make my views known.
I recently happened upon your web site and, as requested, read through
some of your articles fully and, to the best of my ability, with an open
mind. I say "best of my ability" because what to me may be an
open mind may be justifiably construed as being polemical in the extreme
by another. This aside, I felt strongly enough about some of your articles
to write this note to you.
As you will note from my name, I am of Arabic
descent, married to a Jew. I was disowned by my family and community whose
views are based upon the
teachings of the Quran which states, more or less, that while a Muslim
male may marry a Jewish or Christian woman (provided their children, if any, are brought up as Muslims), a Muslim woman
may not marry anyone but a
Muslim man. This teaching was, in my case, verified by the local Imam
whose word carries weight, despite another of your articles' claim that
Islam does not have a priesthood.
I was surprised, therefore, to read a statement in
your article on interfaith marriages, which implies that interfaith
marriages are allowed. While this is technically true, it isn't complete.
Permit me to go a step further. I decided after years
of self-debate to renounce Islam for very simple reasons. Islam, as is the
case with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al, has a fight on its hands
to prove the existence of any god, leave alone a specific one. Moreover,
when any religion claims to have the specific word of a god written in a
so-called holy book, it behoves that religion to prove the validity of the
book. By definition, an omniscient and omnipotent god's word (book) must
necessarily be free of contradiction and falsehood as, for instance, is
claimed by the Quran. The demonstration of even one such, no matter how
simplistic, refutes, the claim to divine inspiration. Thus, the theory of
meteors being missiles cast at spying djinns, apart from defying
credibility, does precisely that.
To rephrase an Austrian Emperor, those of your
articles I've read are emotional but do not convince.
May I ask that you make your guestbook available for
public viewing or, if it is, make a link to it more prominent. Thank you.
Permit me to finish this communication as I began by
thanking you for the opportunity to respond and make my views, for what
they are worth, known. I also state that I do not, to the best of my
knowledge, know or have met Dr Sina, or concur with some of his views.
Regards,
Ismahan Levi
DATE: Tue, 7 May 2002 12:14:38 From: "Faithfreedom.com" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
Dear
Ismahan,
We
have to acknowledge truth of your claims and we do sincerely apologies if
you feel we were not presenting the essential facts correctly. The said
article has been noted and a change will be made soon to reflect your
points which are more than fair. Though, please do understand this was not
meant to in any way mislead. The context of the article is Mr Sina's
constant brainwashing. Mr Sina uses the term "unbeliever" in a
very loose way, and by telling half truths and making half baked
conjecture is able to mislead the already somewhat badly informed public
that Islam demands the demise of anyone who does not follow it! - which of
course is absurd, because within the Quran there are guidelines for
Christians and Jews as well as Pagans who do not make war against the
Muslims - to live in peace with one another. Interfaith marriages and the
permissibility of Kosher food is just an example of this forever meant to
be method of rule.
I
am curious to know if you have considered the views of Islamic scholars
regarding the interfaith marriage issue. The general argument is that
traditionally, (without being sexist) upon marriage the wife is a member
of the husbands household. What the husband enjoins, generally the wife
enjoins. What the husband dislikes, generally the wife dislikes (or comes
to dislike). What the husband permits, the wife permits. What the husband
celebrates, the wife celebrates. If that seems far too old fashioned for
you then consider this: The man has always been the dominant specie, could
7th century Arabia have worked in the way you want it to? I doubt it very
much. Upon entering the household of a Jewish or Christian man the wife
would have to do pretty much as her husband demands of her (following on
from the teachings of the OT and NT) which I’m sure your aware, on the
whole, are less gender equal than the Quran’s teachings concerning
women.
With
that aside I personally have met two sisters who have reverted to Islam
yet have Christian or Atheist husbands. For both, their reversions took
place after their marriages. One Sister knows exactly what her faith
demands of her yet holds back simply because she can’t stand to lose her
husband. In such a situation I can only say: Your Lord knows best! No one
except your Maker can ever know the true feelings you have inside, and
everyone is to be judged upon their own merits and upon limits which apply
to them in particular.
Thus,
the theory of meteors being missiles cast at spying djinns, apart from
defying credibility, does precisely that.
Excuse
me if I didn’t comprehend your exact belief but as a Muslim and student
of physics and of the philosophy of science I constantly battle with
atheists regarding the referred to verse. If the idea of “secret beyond
matter” i.e. Jinn’s appears farcical to you, or the existence of God
is something you sternly reject then that does not leave you in a very
good position to be making claims that the above defies credibility. If
you vividly accept that “Jinn” which according to the Quran are a
creation made of “smokeless flame” (which are beyond the spectrum
limit of what our eyes and camera lenses can register) actually exist and
that they act as spies for their chief, Satan, then the above, as mythical
and nonsensical as it seems, begins to make sense in the context it was
meant to be inferred. Totally denying the first two realities will
inevitably lead to a mocking of the third.
Thank
you for taking the time to write to us. We must confess this is the most
pleasant reply we have had from a non-Muslim thus far.
Yours,
ff.com
PS:
We use to have a guestbook in which we freely allowed people to leave
their comments, but this was proving to be a nightmare with the constant
removal of offensive (racist), often obscene (links to pornography)
content. We will however, soon launch a page whereby we aim to be
including comments such as yours.
Ismahan's second letter to the Faithfreedom.com
team
Dear
Sirs,
Thank you for your reply to my email regarding
interfaith marriages and Islam. I appreciate the time and effort taken. I
also appreciate the magnanimity of your response and thank your associates
and you for it.
There are two points I wish to make in reply.
Firstly, your response raises issues which I will address. (Using accepted
convention I will copy your statements as they obtain within quotations
and respond to them immediately below.) Secondly, to the extent that
mention is made of Dr Ali Sina and his views, I believe he ought to be
aware of our correspondence; to this end I will send him a copy of this
communication. With this understanding, then, let us commence.
“…within the Quran there
are guidelines for Christians and Jews as well as Pagans who do not make
war against the Muslims - to live in peace with one another.”
This statement is, as before, correct but incomplete.
It makes no reference to the reality of Islam and its unique principle of
abrogation (suras 2:160
2:106
, 13:39,
17:86,
etc). While the Quran does initially state that Muslims and others are to
live amicably with each other, this teaching is abrogated by later verses
which state that Islam is to be “shown” to people of other faiths who,
if they refuse to acknowledge, accept and follow it, are then are to be
slain (suras 9:5,
47:5,
and 8:39
among others). These contradict sura 2:256,
“There is no compulsion in religion”. Since sura 9 was among the last
to be “revealed to Muhammad”, it logically abrogates sura 2:256.
In the case of Christians and Jews specifically, the Quran states they may
continue to worship as their faiths require with certain provisos: they
pay a tax to worship as they require, their temples of worship do not
exceed in height those of Islam, they acknowledge the supremacy of Islam,
etc. The principle of abrogation extends to other matters too. Suras 2:142-144,
24:2,
8:65-66,
etc are examples of this concept. Further reading of the Quran and Bukhari
will authenticate these claims and those of Dr Sina.
The above lead to questions regarding abrogation. For
instance, it is claimed that the Quran is the exact copy of the perfect
book that exists in heaven. If it exists in heaven as a perfect book, why
would it contain verses that have been abrogated? If those verses were
really to be abrogated or forgotten, why were they in there in the first
place? Doesn’t it stand to reason that the heavenly book is either
imperfect or the Quran as we have it isn’t an exact copy? Also, what of
the sequence of abrogation? How does it make sense that one verse is
followed immediately by another that cancels it? How does it make sense
that an earlier verse cancels a later one? Why was the later verse
revealed in that case?
“I am curious to know if you
have considered the views of Islamic scholars regarding the interfaith
marriage issue.”
Yes, I did consult with some Imams on this issue.
Each of them made the pointed (in my opinion) observation that the Quran
is very plain in this matter. A Muslim woman has no alternative to
marriage to a Muslim man. There are no exceptions.
“The general argument is that
traditionally … upon marriage the wife is a member of the husbands
household. What the husband enjoins, generally the wife enjoins. What the
husband dislikes, generally the wife dislikes (or comes to dislike). What
the husband permits, the wife permits. What the husband celebrates, the
wife celebrates. If that seems far too old fashioned for you then consider
this: The man has always been the dominant specie, could 7th century
Arabia have worked in the way you want it to? I doubt it very much.”
Tradition is an important part of life in countries
in the Middle East and elsewhere. Many of these have been interwoven into
Islam. Thus we have women thought of as dependent upon men and inferior to
them (sura 4:34
et al). In the days of Muhammad, women may well have been dependent upon
men. This isn’t necessarily so today, especially not in secular nations
which allow for the Declaration of Human Rights. This aspect of Islam was
the product of and for a specific time and place and has little, if any,
relevance to today’s world. If Islamic nations were to provide equal
rights and opportunity to women and accept the Declaration of Human
Rights, I daresay this facet of Islam would become even more irrelevant.
This tradition you refer to is one perpetuated by men
that a woman is somehow inferior and unable to make decisions about
herself by herself. Does this tradition, which finds an echo in the Quran
and the works of apologists like at Tabari, et al, have any relevance
whatsoever to those single women in secular nations who decide to live
alone or in a relationship not sanctioned by organized religion? Are such
women inferior to any men in any way? I don’t believe they are. A woman
scientist heads the organization for which I work. She is accomplished,
intelligent and lives in a de facto relationship. How is it assumed that
she is incapable of looking after herself, deciding what she wishes to do
or inferior to a man in any way? I daresay there are several other
instances of such persons. Don’t their very existence, accomplishments
and way of life disprove the Quran’s statement on male superiority?
In regard to traditional dominance I suggest a body
of evidence exists to indicate man has not always been the dominant
gender, as anthropologists will verify.
“… I personally have met
two sisters who have reverted to Islam yet have Christian or Atheist
husbands. For both, their reversions took place after their marriages.”
As you note, in both cases the husbands are either
Christian or atheist. I imagine these situations obtained in a secular
nation. Could the same be said of Muslim husbands in Muslim countries or
elsewhere? Would a Muslim husband permit the Muslim woman he married to
become a Christian or atheist and
remain married to her? Would he then permit her to live her life as a
Christian or atheist yet continue to love and respect her? Would he permit
her to instill in their children Christian or atheistic and Islamic values
and allow them to decide upon their beliefs as they grow? I confess I
cannot see that happening. My Jewish husband married me as a Muslim and
accepts fully my atheistic views and values despite his religious
convictions. For instance, we do not eat kosher / halal meat because, in
my opinion, the killing of animals by traditional methods is inhumane and
needless. Can you see Muslim men doing likewise?
“Excuse me if I didn’t
comprehend your exact belief but as a Muslim and student of physics and of
the philosophy of science I constantly battle with atheists regarding the
referred to verse (meteors and djinns – I. L.). If the idea of “secret
beyond matter” i.e. Jinn’s appears farcical to you, or the existence
of God is something you sternly reject then that does not leave you in a
very good position to be making claims that the above defies credibility.
If you vividly accept that “Jinn” which according to the Quran are a
creation made of “smokeless flame” (which are beyond the spectrum
limit of what our eyes and camera lenses can register) actually exist and
that they act as spies for their chief, Satan, then the above, as mythical
and nonsensical as it seems, begins to make sense in the context it was
meant to be inferred. Totally denying the first two realities will
inevitably lead to a mocking of the third.”
In my opinion, this is convoluted reasoning and does
not lend to credibility. (Please refer to the website www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
which provides an excellent resource on the subject of logic and logical
fallacies.) According to your statements, I need to believe in a god
(specifically, that of the Quran) to understand and believe in djinns and
meteors cast at them. The fact remains that meteors are no more than space
debris, trapped in the Earth’s gravitational field, which burn up on
entering our atmosphere. This fact alone negates any claims of supreme
councils being spied upon, meteors (material objects) being cast as
missiles at djinns (immaterial entities), etc. Science demonstrates that a
meteor is space debris which burns because of the combined effect of
friction and speed. By deduction, isn’t the other explanation rendered
groundless and ineffectual? I wonder what Muhammad might have made of
Halley’s comet, the Aurora Borealis or the meteor impacts up on Jupiter
had he witnessed those. To quote a fictional detective, “This world is
sufficiently large for people; no spirits and demons need apply.”
It is not my intention to enter into a debate on your
religious beliefs with your associates or you or, worse, attempt to impose
my views upon any of you. Your associates and you have, in my opinion,
every right to believe what you may and worship as you may. So too do
those of the Church of Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
followers of the Rev.Moon. But as a corollary, no religion can claim to be
superior to another in any way. Moreover, when a religion or philosophy
assumes a scientific basis for its beliefs and tenets, it enters the
public realm and leaves itself open to scientific examination and
criticism.
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that
some of the issues you raise (in public and in correspondence to me) are,
I believe, illogical or incomplete in some respects.
Finally, and as before, permit me to thank you for
the opportunity to make my views known, for your time in this matter and
for your patience in going through what has become a rather lengthy
correspondence.
Regards,
Ismahan Levi
Dear Ismahan,
I will now respond using similar convention.
This statement is, as before, correct but incomplete.
It makes no reference to the reality of Islam and its unique principle of
abrogation (suras 2:106, 13:39, 17:86, etc)..
Abrogation is by no means “unique” to Islam. The
concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice
in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has practiced by God for
eons – we are told of this within the Quran (i.e. how God relaxed or
introduced certain prohibitions for mankind with each new messenger for
their own benefit) and we can see evidences of it throughout the OT and
NT. What we know is that the laws governing mankind (i.e., Shariah) change
according to the needs of the society. But the concept of monotheism
(i.e., Tawheed) remains the same. The Creator knows very well that his
creation, the humans, need time and discipline to grow and mature, He
reveals commandments and practices that help them develop both as
individuals and as members of society.
O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet):
"Listen to us" but say "Look upon us," and be ye
listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the
Scripture nor the idolaters love that there should be sent down unto you
any good thing from your Lord. But Allah chooseth for His mercy whom He
will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty. 2:105
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we
abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the
like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ? 2:106
Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth
the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside
Allah, any guardian or helper ? 2:107
Whilst the concept of abrogation is almost certainly
a reality it does not exist to the extent you claim nor is the concept
announced within the Quran as explicitly as some claim on the contrary
abrogation is something which is interwoven into the proceedings of every
day life and is overlooked. It takes places without people knowing and
cannot be defined or extracted from a particular context. Western polemics
use nothing but translation and ignorance of basic historical fact to come
to the decision that abrogation of commandments sent by God (during the
time of Mohammed) is admitted by God within the Quran. The above verse
uses the word “abrogate” in a totally different context. For example
the Arabic word “Ayah” cannot only mean verse, but is also used for
things such as: signs, miracles of God, examples set forth, tokens,
revelations. Lets read the parallel translations:
Arabic: Walaqad atayna moosa tisAAa ayatin bayyinatin
fais-al banee isra-eela ith jaahum faqala lahu firAAawnu innee laathunnuka
ya moosa mashooran
Yusuf Ali:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God
Hath power over all things?
Zohurul Hoque:
Whatever of a message We abrogate, or We cause it to be forgotten,
We bring one better than that, or the like of it. Do you not know that
Allah indeed is the Possessor of power over all things?
T. J. Irving:
We do not cancel any verse nor let it be forgotten instead We bring
something better than it or else something similar. Do you not know that
God is Capable of everything?
T.U. Hilali-M. Khan:
Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh
is able to do all things?
M. Pickthall:
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or
cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like
thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?
M.H. Shakir:
Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We
bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power
over all things?
As for the other verses you have put forward which
are supposed to be showing how God used abrogation during the time of
Mohammed, I urge you to read in the correct context, in Arabic, and ask
yourself once again if these are really describing abrogation of text in
the Quran.
While the
Quran does initially state that Muslims and others are to live amicably
with each other, this teaching is abrogated by later verses which state
that Islam is to be “shown” to people of other faiths who, if they
refuse to acknowledge, accept and follow it, are then are to be slain (suras
9:5, 47:5, and 8:39 among others). These contradict sura
2:256,
“There is no compulsion in religion”. Since sura 9 was among the last
to be “revealed to Muhammad”, it logically abrogates sura 2:256.
Are you serious?
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight
and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and
lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” 9:5 Osama Bin Ladin
used the same verse within his fatwa to justify his new spree of attacks.
This can be invalidated very simply. You are obviously trying to give the
impression that the referred verse of the Quran is directing all
individual Muslims from every era to declare a war against all 'pagans' of
the world (actually those particular type of pagans are no longer in
existence, therefore the verse would be void by now in any case).
Nevertheless, it is a well known fact that the verse relates to a period,
when an organized Muslim state existed in Medina and it was, in fact, this
Muslim state organized under the leadership of the Prophet, which was
directed to fight the 'pagans' in these verses. The Muslims, who are
addressed in these verses are, in fact, addressed as citizens of an
organized Muslim state, which had declared war against the 'pagans'. This
is clearly the case in each and every one of the verses, which entail
directives relating to Jihad.
Furthermore, the 'pagans' against whom fighting is
ordained by the referred verses are not general in nature, but are
actually only the polytheists of Banu Ishmael – historical fact. It
should be clearly understood that the directive of fighting entailed in
these verses relates specifically to God's law relating to the ultimate
manifestation of Truth at the hands of His messenger. The implication of
these verses cannot, in any case, be extended to anyone besides the direct
addressees of the Messenger of God. Tradition is an important part of life
in countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Many of these have been
interwoven into Islam. Thus we have women thought of as dependent upon men
and inferior to them (sura 4:34 et al).
I cannot for one moment believe that as an Arab
speaking person you seem to think that 4:34 is teaching anything other
than a basic fact of life – That men are both emotionally and physically
stronger than women
In the days of Muhammad, women may well have been
dependent upon men. This isn’t necessarily so today, especially not in
secular nations which allow for the Declaration of Human Rights.
I beg to differ. This is a very modern, supposedly
liberal ideology which only (yet) exists as a front. Even in the secular
society it does not hold true for the vast majority of females, though the
situation may change in a few more decades. Even so Islam does not place
any restrictions on these women.
This aspect of Islam was the product of and for a
specific time and place and has little, if any, relevance to today’s
world.
Is that so, just for Islam? Does it not apply to
Christianity and Judaism as well as Islam.
If Islamic nations were to provide equal rights and
opportunity to women and accept the Declaration of Human Rights, I daresay
this facet of Islam would become even more irrelevant.
I almost certainly agree with you that the so-called
Islamic nations could provide much better equal rights and opportunities
for women. Again this is due to traditional and cultural values. Western
ignorance often pleads “In Islam the woman has no choice of marriage
partner” – not knowing that arranged marriages are actually an ancient
Hindu custom. Though isn’t it a bit hypocritical for the “civilized”
Western nations to be supporting these corrupt regimes whilst decrying
such behavior elsewhere? Equal opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia
among others need to be reinstated but can only be achieved if these
corrupt regimes can be
toppled, but will it ever happen? especially when they exist to serve
American interests! Do have a long and hard think about why it is
impossible to reinstate full rights to people in certain parts of the
world.
This tradition you refer to is one perpetuated by men
that a woman is somehow inferior and unable to make decisions about
herself by herself. Does this tradition, which finds an echo in the Quran
and the works of apologists like at Tabari, et al, have any relevance
whatsoever to those single women in secular nations who decide to live
alone or in a relationship not sanctioned by organised religion? Are such
women inferior to any men in any way? I don’t believe they are.
I must intercede here. Apart from the basic fact that
women are physically inferior to men the above is not true for Islam.
There are various accounts (within the hadith) and also in the Quran of
where women were allowed to discuss, make their own choices and argue with
the Prophet on matters relating to marriage bond, wealth and property.
Decision already made for them? I beg to differ.
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 199:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin
Shammas came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not
blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I am
afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful for Allah's
Blessings." On that, Allah's Apostle said (to her), 'Will you return
his garden to him?" She said, "Yes." So she returned his
garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 206:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Barira's husband was a slave
called Mughith, as if I am seeing him now, going behind Barira and weeping
with his tears flowing down his beard. The Prophet said to 'Abbas, "O
'Abbas ! are you not astonished at the love of Mughith for Barira and the
hatred of Barira for Mughith?" The Prophet then said to Barira,
"Why don't you return to him?" She said, "O Allah's
Apostle! Do you order me to do so?" He said, "No, I only
intercede for him." She said, "I am not in need of him."
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 227: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
Hilal bin Umaiyya accused his wife of illegal sexual
intercourse and came to the Prophet to bear witness (against her), (taking
the oath of Lian). The Prophet was saying, "Allah knows that either
of you is a liar. Will anyone of you repent (to Allah)?" Then the
lady got up and gave her witness.
Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the Messenger
of Allah, and she reported that her father had forced her to marry without
her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice...(between accepting
the marriage or invalidating it) (Ahmad, Hadith no. 2469). Another version
of the report states that “the girl said: ‘Actually, I accept this
marriage, but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right to
force a husband on them.’” (Ibn-Majah).
According to your statements, I need to believe in a
god (specifically, that of the Quran) to understand and believe in djinns
and meteors cast at them. The fact remains that meteors are no more than
space debris, trapped in the Earth’s gravitational field, which burn up
on entering our atmosphere.
First of all: as always with what happens when Islam
comes underneath the microscope a whole array of assumptions have been
made before we have even bothered to consider what the Quran is
describing. Just a belief in the idea of non-visible (to the human eye)
matter would suffice furthermore we cannot make the assumption that
meteors are what is being described.
Assumptions you have probably made:
·
Meteors are definitely what is being described.
·
Mohammed saw a meteorite in the sky and devised this theory.
·
The lower heavens are the skies of the Earth.
Scientifically meteors are not the same as stars yet
the sensationalists continue to describe meteorites as ‘shooting
stars’. But we are not of those kind! The only reason why they are
visible is because they are so close to The Earth. Yes you are correct
most meteors are tiny specks of dust and rapidly burn up in the atmosphere
but is this what the Quran is describing? How can you be so sure? Why did
you make that assumption? Is it because this could’ve been the only
thing Mohammed could witness with his very own eyes? Isn’t your ends
justifying the means?
Are you implying that space debris exposed to the
gravitational field of Mars do not burn upon entering the atmosphere of
Mars? (of course your not). Your ends is justifying the means since
according to you Mohammed wrote the Quran, he would have no knowledge of
matters on Mars, any planet, or of anywhere in space for that matter.
Therefore the words he supposedly uttered were all related to what he was
witnessing with his own two eyes. Since the Quran (as it tells us) is the
word of an omnipotent omnipresent being, namely God, He would be in a
perfect position to make such statements (even if the events he was
relating took place a billion light years away from our own Earth).
This fact alone negates any claims of supreme
councils being spied upon, meteors (material objects) being cast as
missiles at djinns (immaterial entities), etc. Science demonstrates that a
meteor is space debris which burns because of the combined effect of
friction and speed. By education, isn’t the other explanation rendered
groundless and ineffectual?
There is no contradiction between science and God,
let me put it another way: “Science is God in action”. Again even if
near-Earth meteors were what God is describing in those particular verses,
could it not be that these meteors and the direction and speed (velocity)
with which they arrived, progressed and eventually burned up was an
ordained event? How could you possibly verify it wasn’t? After all God
is the ruler of all affairs as he constantly reminds us throughout the
Quran.
Allah created you from dust, then from a little
fluid, then He made you pairs (the male and female). No female beareth or
bringeth forth save with His knowledge. And no-one groweth old who groweth
old, nor is aught lessened of his life, but it is recorded in a Book, Lo!
that is easy for Allah. 35:11
God is the Creator of all things, and He is guardian
and watcher over everything. To Him belong the keys of the heavens and
Earth. (39:62-3)
Glory be to Him in Whose hand is the kingdom and
inner dimensions of all things. (36:83)
There is not a moving creature but He has grasp of it
by the forelock.(11:56)
Those who disbelieve say: The Hour will never come
unto us. Say: Nay, by my Lord, but it is coming unto you surely. (He is)
the Knower of the Unseen. Not an atoms weight, or less than that or
greater, escapes Him in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a clear
Record. That He may reward those who believe and do good words. For them
is pardon and a rich provision. But those who strive against our
revelations, challenging (Us), theirs will be a painful doom of wrath.
(34:3-5)\
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that
some of the issues you raise (in public and in correspondence to me) are,
I believe, illogical or incomplete in some respects.
Can I ask how you could possibly understand Godly
wisdom through abrogation if you do not for one minute believe in an
all-ruling Creator? (please read this question at least thrice before
commenting).
I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about
logic and why I feel I am logically profound than most Atheists. Such a
discussion would be completely pointless between two people with differing
beliefs; rather the focus should remain to be on weighing up the chances
of there not being an intelligent being governing this wonderful universe.
I will say to you though, for me to deny this magnificent force in nature
which bore us out of nothingness (as we know it) really is the most
illogical, and down right foolish thing I could ever do. As easy as you
deny the existence of God (The Creator) I accept him with 100% certainty.
Personally (and I will divulge only slightly) this is the result of what I
experience with my (seemingly) unconscious mind (through dreams). These
dreams relate to me aspects of my day ahead to the most incredible detail
- making for enough proof of the spiritual world at least.
Thank you very much for your reply. As I’m sure you
know only too well, it is very difficult for working professionals to put
aside time for preparing these lengthy writings. This is why we took
almost a week and a half to get back to you. We would now like to focus on
preparing more articles on our website for the benefit of Dr Sina’s
fans.
Once again, thank you, and may the force be with you!
ff.com
Ismahan
Levi Responds
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your response to my last email. The
time and effort expended in doing so by your colleagues and you are much
appreciated.
As I stated at the outset of our exchange of
communications, it is not my desire to enter into a debate on your beliefs
with your colleagues or you. I felt I had a point to make in regard to
some of the issues you raised in the articles published at your website
(for instance, in regard to interfaith marriages as viewed by Islam, the
authority of the Islamic hierarchy in view of your statement that Islam
does not have a priesthood, etc.) and so initiated this correspondence.
Further correspondence raised a few more issues, which I have attempted to
address from the point of view of one who has been part of the Islamic
fold and now no longer empathizes with its philosophy. Permit me, then, to
continue in this vein and address your last email. As before, I will
follow accepted convention and paste your statements before responding to
them.
“Abrogation is by no means “unique” to Islam.
The concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or
practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has practiced by
God for eons – we are told of this within the Quran…”
The concept of abrogation remains unique to Islam. I
draw your attention to the work of a reputed Islamic scholar, Arthur
Jeffery, in his book, "Islam: Muhammad and His Religion",
published by Merril. “The Quran is unique among sacred scriptures in
teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements
of the Prophet abrogate, i.e. declare null and void, his earlier
pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has
given rise to the Quranic “science” known as “Nasikh wa Mansukh”,
i.e.: “the Abrogators and the Abrogated”.
To claim that the Islamic god has exercised this
concept “for eons” begs the question, how long do you suppose an eon
to be? If Islam accepts creation as a fact, that Adam and Eve were the
first humans and all humankind evolved from them, one may also accept the
Bishop of Usher’s statement that the world was created in 4004 BCE. This
does not provide much space for “eons”. Furthermore, to claim the
Islamic god abrogated previous commands and base the claim on Quranic
verses constitutes circular reasoning.
“ Are you serious? Osama Bin Ladin used the same
verse (9:5) within his fatwa to justify his new spree of attacks. This can
be invalidated very simply. You are obviously trying to give the
impression that the referred verse of the Quran is directing all
individual Muslims from every era to declare a war against all 'pagans' of
the world (actually those particular type of pagans are no longer in
existence, therefore the verse would be void by now in any case).”
You ask if I am serious in my claim that sura 9
abrogates 2:256. I reply, yes, very. In doing so I merely echo the
statements of recognized Islamic scholars, from Bukhari onwards, who make
the same claim. If that is not easily acceptable I refer you to the work
of Abu Bakr Mohammad Ibn 'Abd Allah known as Ibn al-'Arabi, in his work
Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. 1, p232-234:
“No compulsion" is a condemnation of
compelling people to do evil generally, but compelling people in the truth
is a religious duty. Does the infidel get killed for any thing except on
the basis of his religion? The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight
against the people until they testify that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah. This Hadith is taken from the words of Allah, 'Fight
them on until there is no more tumult and all religion becomes that of
Allah (Q. 2:193).”
Let us examine Bukhari’s sahih (authenticated)
hadith. In his collection of Hadith, known as Sahih Bukhari, there is a
chapter headed "'The statement of Allah, 'But if they repent and
offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity then leave
their way free'" (9:5) In this chapter Bukhari recorded the following
Hadith:
"Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: I have been
ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the
right to be worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is Allah's apostle, and
offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they
perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except
from Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by
Allah." (English translation, Vol.1 Hadith No.24)
Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, the author of an-Nasikh
wal-Mansuk, informs us that there are 114 verses that speak of tolerance
in early Islam, but all were abrogated by one verse, "Slay the
idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. 9:5), before the death of
Mohammad. (Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah,
birute, 1986, P.19)
I could provide further references from Islamic
scholars, ancient and modern, but that would merely belabor the point. The
fact remains that 9:5 abrogates 2:256, 2:62, 5:69, and other verses. If
doubt still remains, I suggest you discuss this aspect of Islam with an
Imam. However, I am very interested to read your claim that a certain
verse of the Quran is “void”. It begs the question, if this is but one
aspect of the Quran which is “void”, how many others may we place in
the same category?
“Furthermore, the 'pagans' against whom fighting is
ordained by the referred verses are not general in nature, but are
actually only the polytheists of Banu Ishmael – historical fact.”
You claim that the verse 9.5 refers to “only the
polytheists of Banu Ishmael”, who are, in your words, “no longer in
existence, therefore the verse would be void by now in any case.” This
is a curious statement, not least because firstly, it renders at least one
verse of the Quran void according to you and secondly, underlines the
fallacy of your argument that Islam is not irrelevant in today’s world.
I repeat my claim, Islam is the result of a specific time and place and
has little, if any relevance, to today’s world. The fact that
Christianity and Judaism are similar in nature doesn’t alleviate this
fact or elevate the one above the other philosophies. Furthermore, this
argument is especially specious given the general trend of Islam to
belittle the authority and validity of Christianity and Judaism.
“I cannot for one moment believe that as an Arab
speaking person you seem to think that 4:34 is teaching anything other
than a basic fact of life – That men are both emotionally and physically
stronger than women.”
You claim that it is a fact that men are emotionally
and physically stronger than women. Men are physically stronger than
women, no doubt. But may I ask the titles of the study or studies which
lend to the claim that women are emotionally weaker than men? Could this
just possibly be an indication of an Islamic upbringing or, at least, of
an upbringing close to an Islamic society? On the other hand, any decent
(secular) library will provide you with psychological studies which
indicate quite the opposite. A cursory search of the world-wide web will
provide similar results from secular sources which do not answer to any
religion or are predisposed towards one.
"I beg to differ. (The independence of women) is
a very modern, supposedly liberal ideology which only (yet) exists as a
front. Even in the secular society it does not hold true for the vast
majority of females, though the situation may change in a few more
decades. Even so Islam does not place any restrictions on these
women."
It is very true that women in secular societies do
not have all the freedoms, liberties and advantages accorded to their male
counterparts. However, your argument again does not hold water. In secular
societies, women have the right and access to processes to ensure they may
address any perceived disadvantage and rectify it. Because of this right
the infamous glass ceiling is being steadily eroded. Secular societies
evolve and change on a continual basis, mostly for the better. This is in
direct opposition to closed systems such as Islam which, as you imply, is
a doctrine for all time. To put it more plainly and simultaneously
demonstrate the quandary it faces, Islam must acknowledge that women today
are not intellectually, morally and emotionally inferior to men, or become
even more irrelevant. However, if this is acknowledged to be true, it must
also acknowledge that the Quranic statements on the inferiority of women
(such as having two women witnesses as opposed to one male, etc) are, to
use your term, “void” and irrelevant. Either way, Islam and other
religions which do not provide equal rights to women and men are doomed to
becoming increasingly irrelevant.
“Western ignorance often pleads “In Islam the
woman has no choice of marriage partner” – not knowing that arranged
marriages are actually an ancient Hindu custom.”
It is true that Indians and other societies practice
arranged marriages. However, Hinduism does not indicate that a woman may
not have a say in her choice of partner. If a Hindu woman marries a
non-Hindu she merely loses her caste in accordance with the laws provided
by Manu; she is not automatically excommunicated. Moreover, unlike Islam,
there is no law in Hinduism which states that a Hindu woman may only marry
a Hindu man. I suggest we do not confuse Hindu law with custom.
This aside, I do not understand the relevance of your
argument. Do you claim that Islam merely copied ancient Hindu customs? Or
is it possible that Islam merely consolidated and reinforced Arabic
practices in regard to women? In either case the question is to be asked,
did Islam borrow from Hinduism or is Islam the product of a specific time
and place?
I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about
logic and why I feel I am logically profound than most Atheists. Such a
discussion would be completely pointless between two people with differing
beliefs; rather the focus should remain to be on weighing up the chances
of there not being an intelligent being governing this wonderful universe.
I will say to you though, for me to deny this magnificent force in nature
which bore us out of nothingness (as we know it) really is the most
illogical, and down right foolish thing I could ever do. As easy as you
deny the existence of God (The Creator) I accept him with 100% certainty.
Personally (and I will divulge only slightly) this is the result of what I
experience with my (seemingly) unconscious mind (through dreams). These
dreams relate to me aspects of my day ahead to the most incredible detail
- making for enough proof of the spiritual world at least.
I must agree with your statement that it is difficult
for two people with widely differing views to reach consensus on most
subjects. This is where discussion, debate and reasoning come into their
own. I do acknowledge your implication that religion is a subjective
experience and, thus, becomes a personal reality. I’m sure you will
acknowledge and agree, however, that personal realities remain just that
at all times. They cannot be stated with the same authority as, say,
Newton’s second law. You may rightfully believe that you are
“logically profound than most atheists.” But this again is a
subjective assessment of ability.
I acknowledge and accept your desire not to reveal
your identity. To this extent it is impossible, save by examining the
reasoning evinced in your arguments, to state what authority you bring to
the subject. On the other hand, there are respected scientists who make
their identities and views known. By and large, they deny creationism and
reject it. To give just two examples, please refer to www.geocities.com/athens/cyprus/8732
which is the web page of Turkish scientists who speak out against
creationism and http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism,
which provides the view of the National Academy of Sciences, a respected
body, in regard to the subject.
Your statement that science is god in action is, in
my view and professional opinion, is wishful thinking. It presupposes the
existence of a deity and bases that presupposition on a purely subjective
experience. Such an experience is usually reinforced in the psyche by
one’s upbringing and environment. Such subjectivity will gain
credibility only when it can be measured and quantified. Until then, it
remains nebulous and any argument based upon it is, at best, tenuous.
It appears to me that your reasoning, as evinced in
the articles published at your website and your communications to me,
contains flaws similar to those demonstrated in the reasoning of other
apologists. It also appears to me, and by your own admission, that your
arguments for Islam and its tenets is based largely on subjective emotion,
and together with other apologetics, semantics and sophistry. The
fact remains that Islam contradicts itself in several areas. Whether this
is termed abrogation or otherwise, whether divine license is offered by
way of reason or otherwise, when examined logically and without
preconception, it demonstrates no special claim to authority or
superiority to other philosophies; quite the reverse, in fact.
I understand your desire to focus on articles for
your website for the benefit of Dr Sina’s “fans”. This draws my
deeper appreciation for your time and effort in responding to my
communications. I thank you again for those and understand this will
terminate our correspondence.
Regards,
Ismahan Levi
next
> |
