A few weeks ago, I posted an article titled "Sharia in Practice: Letting Muslim Girls Burn for Lack of Modesty". The article highlights the 2002 Mecca school fire in which at least 15 girls died. The cause of their deaths? Mutaween, or the Sharia Police, would not let the girls out of the burning school, nor would they let rescuers in, because the girls were not dressed modestly enough.
Aside from quoting Time magazine, that was the entirety of my post. I made no claim that burning girls for lack of modesty is enjoined on Muslims through Sharia. Not once did I say Muhammad taught this, that the Quran teaches this, or that any school of Islamic thought teaches this.
So here is a challenge for Nabeel:
-Bring a SINGLE Quranic verse, or authentic Hadith that says Muslims should burn immodest women
In fact I will save Nabeel some time, no such text exists, there is no such Islamic ruling, Nabeel is simply being ignorant, and is simply spreading false propaganda, simple as that.
Let us examine four problems with Sami's response:
Problem Number 1 - Did I ever claim that according to Sharia, a Muslim should burn immodest women? No! Nowhere in my article did I claim this. My article was not titled "Sharia law states women should burn for immodesty". It was "Sharia in practice: Letting Muslim girls burn for lack of modesty". Sami grossly misinterpreted my words.
As anyone with basic English interpretation skills and rudimentary honesty would conclude from the title alone, the article was not about how Sharia should be practiced, but rather Sharia in practice, and how it has resulted in the immolation of young girls. This is an undeniable fact, as undeniable as the fact that the Saudi government forgave the mutaween for their decision to let the girls die.
Problem Number 2 - Sami is wrong with an implicit fact as well. He has equated A: "letting girls burn for immodesty" to B: "burning girls for immodesty". A is a passive act, but B is a choice to kill. A and B are thus very different from each other, with B being a much worse crime. Sami claims that I declared B to be allowed in Sharia. This is an even more preposterous interpretation than problem number 1! As I said above, I was not making any statements regarding the normative application of Sharia, but beyond this, my claim was that the mutaween are guilty of A, not B! Of course, even this confusion could have been avoided if Sami had simply interpreted the title of the article accurately.
Problem Number 3 - Sami then went on to call me ignorant. Apart from being judgmental, Sami is simply wrong again. I ignored no aspect of my article, and made no uninvestigated claim.
Problem Number 4 - Finally, Sami states that I am simply spreading false propaganda. How can this be the case, when my whole article simply consisted of reporting an event which even Time Magazine reports? This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.
So what have we seen today? Sami interprets words the way he wants, blames his preposterous interpretations on the writer, and then accuses the writer of being ignorant and perpetuating lies!
The fact is, this is not a solitary occurrence. This is the modus operandi for many Muslims and their arguments. Many of the arguments against Christian apologists would easily be resolved if Muslims simply bothered to interpret the Christians accurately. If intentional, this can only be a distraction tactic; it serves no purpose in approaching the truth, and it simply confuses the readers who might be less than fully engaged. In the future, let's keep our eyes open for this method of argumentation and let's call it out for what it is: either poor interpretation skills or sheer distraction.