69 million page views

to Shakeel: Your interpretation a good beginning to reforming Islam

Reader comment on item: Bolstering Moderate Muslims
in response to reader comment: RE:To Shakeel: Animals have better values than your religious ones

Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), May 19, 2007 at 09:24

Shakeel, you are in square brackets

You write:[ "...As a natural guidance, God took the promise from all mankind to worship Him alone, so it is innate in our nature to worship one God alone and further He inspired them with moral values. In this sense, all children are born as Muslim because they are born with natural guidance of God. It is later, his parents diverted him away from what is innate in their nature and they become polytheists. So every child is born Muslim no matter he is born in Chinese, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christian, Jew etc.]

How come I am unaware of any such promise I made to God? If someone came and told you that you had promised to give him all your property on a particular date would you accept it if you are unaware of having made such a promise or unless he shows you evidence that you had forgotten what you had promised. If a so-called Rasool comes and tells me that I had made such a promise why should I believe him?

You say it is our innate nature to worship one god. The nature that Allah has established in us seems pretty weak considering the number of people who refuse to live up to that nature.

If all children are born with natural guidance OF god and parents later misguide them it means god's guidance is very weak if mere humans can overcome what Allah has imbued in us. What value Allah's 'natural guidance'?

You write:[ "Second part of this guidance came with the revelations of God, which He gave to mankind through His prophets and Messengers. Quran says that God sent His Messengers and Prophets to every nation..."]

This question has been asked before, so what happened to those revelations. Muslims answer by saying they were corrupted, lost etc. How can God's message get lost or corrupted. Did Allah not have the foresight and power to ensure that they would not be corrupted or lost? Conveniently your rasool comes and claims he is the last such messenger and from now on Allah will ensure that this new message of his will last for ever. The message is supposedly on a tablet preserved in heaven since creation. If that is so then the messengers to the other nations also would have been Mohammed with all the other dramatis personae since the Koran mentions, Zaynab, his wives, and other relations. How could it be otherwise as the message being delivered is the same as the one preserved in paradise?

As to Qaum Samood and Qaum Aad they are also within the historical and geographical boundaries of Arabia. Allah has no clue about people beyond the caravan trails.

["Now when your link is broken with God, you will turn into animal. And animal does not have any moral value. See national geographic, how animal acts before wishing to be an animal...."]

Turn on your TV to see how human beings with links to Allah act. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or almost any Islmaic majority country for that matter. Why do people with links to Allah blow each other up, indulge in honour killings, go on a rampage when they feel their religion has been hurt by some silly cartoons but people with no links to Allah have moral values which prevents them from such acts? I have watched National Geographic and I still believe animals have better moral values than those people with links to Allah, you'll see why when I look at the last two paras of your post.

["Apostates of Islam cannot be murdered, this law is special with Rasool only and only those people are killed who rejects Rasool's teachings, when he does his preaching among them...."]

Which sect of Islam do you follow Shakeel? You are expected to follow the Rasool very closely as he himself and his Allah insisted often enough. His dress, beard, actions all are expected to be imitated by his followers. What was specific to the Rasool was spelled out in the Koran itself, like permission to marry as many wives as he wanted, being allowed 20% of booty and so on. All his other actions are halal. If apostates were not to be murdered by believers why did his beloved companions do it. The ridda wars were about apostacy. How many people did Abu Baker, the closest companion of the Prophet, kill because they apostasised? You must also have heard of another companion, the bloodthirsty Khalid Bin Walid. How many of those poor animals you accuse of moral degeneracy would compare with the cruelties this Sword of Islam perpetrated against infidels and probably apostates? The Rasool was dead when these massacres happened, so are you telling us these closest companions did not know they were not allowed to kill apostates?

["Rasool comes to implement God's judgment on earth, this judgment is a mini-judgment and preface to the final Day of Judgment when righteous will be rewarded and wrong doer will get punishment."]

Shakeel you must belong to a Muslim sect with a membership of one, you. You have arrogated Allah's role of Judge to the Rasool, which even he did not claim. The most he claimed was the power to intercede on behalf of sinners in one of those innumerable hadiths.

["Islam restricts child marriage by requiring that both members are Baligh, mentally and physically mature."]

Show me a verse or Shahi Hadith which stipulates this unless you consider someone who is only nine to be physically and mentally mature. Or is it true that marrying a child was another special dispensation given to the Rasool?

[" Islam does not ask Muslims to take prisoners of war as slaves or prisoner women as their wives. "]

Tell us Shakeel, who were Juwairiya, Safia and Rehana. Out of the booty taken in his raids the Prophet himself used to distribute the loot, including women, to his raiders. Have you discovered a different meaning for 'marry from among those your right hand possess.?"

Read these verses: 58:3 .Those who estrange their wives in this manner, then reconcile thereafter, shall atone by freeing a slave before resuming their sexual relations. This is to enlighten you. GOD is Cognizant of everything you do. Those who put away their wives by calling them mothers, and then would go back on what they have said, must free a slave before they touch one another. This is what you are admonished with. And ALLAH is Well-Aware of what you do. 58:4 If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall fast two consecutive months before resuming sexual relations. If you cannot fast, then you shall feed sixty poor people. You shall believe in GOD and His messenger......

How come Muslims came to possess slaves who could be freed as atonement for some sin so that they can have sex with their wives again? The Banu Qurazia women and children were taken as slaves.

["... Islam also do not ask to force convert any one....All these things were special with Rasool only, because all those who fight against Rasool are to be punished and humiliated....."]

Is that not an honest to god Goebellesian lie? What do these verses tell you:

009.029 SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

9:111 GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph.

8:39 And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

What are these verses telling you to do? 9:29 tells you to fight those who do not believe in Allah and kill them unless they pay protection money. The pagans are to be killed anyway unless they convert.

9:111 is very interesting. Here Allah makes a binding contract to give you paradise if you fight for him and kill or are killed. In all other cases Allah hedges his promise of paradise by if it pleases him but here it is a binding promise.

8:39 clearly sets out that religion should be only for Allah.

["...All these things were special with Rasool only, because all those who fight against Rasool are to be punished and humiliated....."]

Another of Allah's DIVINE LAWS? These divine laws of his seem to require death and destruction and humiliation of human beings for fighting someone who pops up in their midst proclaiming himself to be a Rasool. Just like the divine law to destroy whole towns and tribes.

["I never heard/read any teaching of Islam which is against morality or Fitrah (Nature)."]

A fifty three year old man marrying a nine year old is not against nature? Considering women to be lesser beings than men is not against nature? Holding slaves against their will is not against nature and morality? Thrashing your wife is moral?

["...All you objections are valid only till the time, you do not know the difference between a general man and Rasool..."]

Let us take a look at the difference between ordinary mortals as compared to Rasool. Ordinary mortals cannot marry more than four at a time, Rasool can marry any number including his own adopted son's wife or a pre-pubescent girl. Ordinary humans cannot kill apostates or those who oppose them but the Rasool is free to slaughter people he considers are not paying heed to his preachings. Ordinary people cannot break their covenants but the Rasool is allowed by Allah to do so with impunity (Surah 9: 1-4). Ordinary beings are not allowed to murder people who write verses against them but Rasool can do that be they doddering old men or a mother cradling her infant. Oh yes Shakeel, we know the difference between 'a general man and Rasool' and we understand and it is not pretty.

I will say one thing for you Shakeel, if you really believe what you have written about all the horrors that Islam allows being limited to prophetic times, you have made a good beginning. You recognise that twentyfirst century man will reject such behaviour as unethical and immoral even if ordained by God himself. It is the kind of interpretation, even if wrong, that must be encouraged in order to humanise Islam and its adherants. I have seen this curious way of suggesting that the Prophet's actions are unacceptable in modern times from some other Muslims on Danielpipes. A good beginning and I hope more Muslims come to think this way.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)