Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Tanveer Ahmed: "Islam Must Face Its Uncomfortable Truths"

Here’s a nice, short article in which Tanveer Ahmed says that Islam itself is fueling acts of terrorism:

“Islam Must Face Its Uncomfortable Truths”

It’s interesting to note, however, that Ahmed appeals only to Muslim theology, and not to the history of Muhammad. I find the latter far more important for understanding the role of violence in Islam. When we read a verse in the Qur’an that sounds incredibly violent, we must admit that many Muslims will reinterpret the verse. But it is far more difficult to reinterpret historical facts. For a sample of Muhammad’s violent history, see my article “Murdered by Muhammad.”

7 comments:

Sunil said...

I would like to comment upon the following point from Tanveer Ahmed’s article:

>> Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centers on sexuality.

It is easy to complain about how the Islamic apologists scratch at the bottom end of the moral ladder to find some resemblance (like showcasing "immoral west" to cover-up things like polygamy, child marriage, suppression of women etc) and even win converts on that basis (a vast majority of conversion stories to Islam invariably bring this point of negative elements in western societies – as if that those elements represent Christianity) and these things are even used to incite/radicalize the potential terrorists. (Instead, they should try to show the highest conceivable moral/philosophical values/standards/doctrines, as the claim is, with respect to Jesus’ life/message/doctrine).

We must recognize though, that there is a genuine problem/concern here, which needs to be addressed. The voice representing the perfect moral example of Jesus, the advanced/sophisticated monotheism of Christian worldview, the strong affirmation of salvation, the very reality of the Redeemer and so on, is often trampled upon and dominated by several non-religious voices -- to an extent that sometimes people may not even notice the existence of the former voice.

B said...

David said in his small post...

When we read a verse in the Qur’an that sounds incredibly violent, we must admit that many Muslims will reinterpret the verse.


David there are different ways to explain the Qura'n.

1)Textual context (qur'an explains it self)
2) How the Prophet explained and taught it (since qur'an gives the Prophet that task and authority in 3:164 and 16:44)
3) How the early generation Muslims applied it since they hold authority because God promised them heaven in Surah 9:100 and the prophet said that they would be the best generations in several authentic hadith
4) Historial context: since the Qur'an was revealed during certain times and stages.


So when we look at the Jihad verses we understand by these critera and see how it was explained by the Prophet and early Muslims and see its context. Not from some ignoramus who just picks up the Qur'an and start quoting verses left right and center out of context.

You link to your article talking about the murders. I suggest you read this article since most of them are addressed there...

http://www.authenticsunnah.org/umar/dead_poets_rebuttal.htm


Again and I will repeat this throughout every post if I have to.

If you can submit your intellect and blind faith in the God of the Old Testament who approved of the rape of women, babie's heads being smashed against rocks, having pregnant woman speared to death, etc... then this shows that you are applying a double standard.

This lame response of 'well it was in the past and not anymore' will not suffice. Because at the end of the day you still believe that it is possible for God to approve of this stuff. Since your false allegations against Islam are no where near as bad then you should hae no problem with Islam. I would say that it is Christianity that would have to face its uncomfortable truths and not the other way around.

Kind Regards,
Bassam

Sunil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sunil said...

Bassam,

>> If you can submit your intellect and blind faith in the God of the Old Testament who approved of the rape of women, babie's heads being smashed against rocks, having pregnant woman speared to death, etc... then this shows that you are applying a double standard.
>> This lame response of 'well it was in the past and not anymore' will not suffice. Because at the end of the day you still believe that it is possible for God to approve of this stuff

In my country, there is a proverb about the attitude of some people, that "if they cannot move up to other's level, they will try to bring down others to their level!".

If you want a standard to match up to or compare to, it is that of Jesus' life and message and how he prescribed we ought to live. What is permitted at a kindergarten level is not acceptable after one has or is given a PhD. But what are these "pregnant woman speared to death", "babie's heads being smashed against rocks" and so on that you are talking about?

B said...

But what are these "pregnant woman speared to death", "babie's heads being smashed against rocks" and so on that you are talking about?


For babies head's go here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/biblical_god_praised_for_having_babies_killed near the end of the article.

As for pregnant women go here http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm


In my country, there is a proverb about the attitude of some people, that "if they cannot move up to other's level, they will try to bring down others to their level!".

Sunil I have explained my intention of appealing to Bible atrocities. I said many times before why I refer to them. You are tiring me out in explaining the reason.

Sunil said...

Bassam,

>> For babies head's go here
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/biblical_god_praised_for_having_babies_killed near the end of the article.

>> As for pregnant women go here
http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm

You are stretching your imagination, desperate to find a match, instead of raising up to the highest/fuller ideals/revelation given to us. What we are seeing in the first case you quoted above (in Psalms) is a poetic song in hyperbolic expression and a poetical expression for retribution (of Old Testament "eye for eye"). That was long before we have the fuller and higher order of revelation in Jesus. We need to refer to what Jesus said about "eye for eye". As I said, what is accepted at Kindergarten is not acceptable after we have or given a Ph.D.
As for the second issue, it is talking about the kind of things that would happen if Samaria would be defeated/captured.

>> I have explained my intention of appealing to Bible atrocities. I said many times before why I refer to them. You are tiring me out in explaining the reason.

An 'eye for an eye' in OT is not a justification after we know about what Jesus said and explained about "eye for eye" and after we have the higher order of revelation and told how we ought to live our lives. The more you are forced to quote OT (instead of Jesus) to find a resemblance/match, the more your purpose is defeated.

Unknown said...

There is no order of God in the Bible to smash heads of babies or ripping open pregnant women? If there is where is it?Just quote the book and the versicle