|
||
Freethinkers’ Vs Islam and the Burden of Proof
I stopped posting my thoughts on News from Bangladesh sometime ago, as I felt that this web site faced pressures from its readerships on the subjects I expressed myself on, primarily, for the reason that they were finding them to be contrary to what Muslims had been believing in for almost a millennium and half. I, however, kept on accessing this site regularly to read interesting materials that it posts from time to time for the benefit of its readers.
One of the interesting articles I happened to read today came from the mighty pen of Mr. Yamin Zakaria. His arguments have induced me to write this response, which I hope NFB will publish on its site, notwithstanding what is mentioned in it.
Mr. Zakaria has stated: “How often we hear the familiar questions; - “Prove that God exists?”, “Prove that Muhammad (SAW) is a Prophet of God?”, “Prove that the Quran is the word of God?”. These fundamental questions are not unreasonable; the Muslims should and have provided answers on these subjects.”
My response: Though Mr. Zakaria agreed that Muslims should provide answers to the questions he himself has raised, but he, despite being a Muslim, has not attempted to do what he expected other Muslims to do! Would it not have been wise for him to come up with answers to his own questions, instead of leaving it for others to answer?
Mr. Zakaria asserted: “However, the problem arises when the so-called ‘freethinkers’ pose such questions to launch a subjective interrogation with preconceived ideas of right and wrong. As if they have no burden of proof to justify their own dogmas and criteria.”
My response: It is natural for most humans to approach certain subjects from a pre-determined notion. Since Mr. Zakaria has equated the freethinkers’ quest for truth with interrogation and a court trial, I will try to expound my thoughts by relying on his own examples.
It is well known a fact that prosecutors always interrogate suspects with the assumption that they are guilty of the crime they have charged them with. On the other hand, the accused persons’ defenders always believe that they are innocent; hence their all-out efforts to save them from imprisonment or the gallows of death.
Since both the prosecutors and the defenders’ positions differ diametrically from each other, the judge or the jury assumes the responsibility to determine whether or not the accused are guilty. This process does not always guarantee a just outcome; on many occasions, many innocent people have suffered punishments, despite being innocent.
Keeping the above real-life drama in mind, I must point out that since almost all Muslims claim that Islam is the best religion of the world, a claim that is debatable, the responsibility to prove it as such falls squarely on their shoulders. In other words, Muslims are the defenders of their own claim; therefore, they must substantiate it with undisputable proves, no matter how undiplomatically questions are asked of them by the freethinkers.
Mr. Zakaria claimed: “Eventually the ‘freethinkers’ take on the liberty to use their ‘free’ mind to express the so-called allegations against Islam using the most vulgar language like the depraved criminal hoodlums!”
My response: Mr. Zakaria’s above allegation proves that he, like almost all of his Muslim contemporaries, does not believe in substantiating his own claim with a proof. Though he claimed that freethinkers use ‘most vulgar language like the depraved criminal hoodlums,’ but he did not produce any evidence in support of his statement. Is it not a weird thing for a judicious person like Mr. Zakaria to say on a public forum like News from Bangladesh?
I don’t say that freethinkers do not use harsh words occasionally in their comments, but don’t Muslims do the same thing? Don’t they call the persons they do not agree with ‘kafirs,’ ‘infidels’ and ‘the fire of hell’? Don’t they often threaten their opponents with physical violence in the manner of criminal hoodlums Mr. Zakaria has referred to in his article? Don’t they, like Mr. Zakaria, often challenge the legitimacy of their birth?
I will point out Mr. Zakaria’s indecent remark on his unnamed antagonist’s ‘bastardly’ origin momentarily.
Can Mr. Zakaria quote a single example that proves that the freethinkers have threatened their opponents with death or with any other violent measures?
Mr. Zakaria postulated: “Any neutral observer with commonsense will appreciate the fact that a debate across two different value systems (ideologies, civilisations or religions) by rational necessity, demands that the burden of ‘proof’ should be a two-way process. Meaning, that both side needs to provide evidences to: justify their respective positions and cross examine each others viewpoints! And ideally neutral arbiters or agreed common set of criteria should be used to determine the validity of the proofs.”
My response: Agreeing with Mr. Zakaria’s fair observation, I claim that the Allah, who is believed to have established Islam through Muhammad, was not the real Allah we humans should be praying to; that Muhammad was not a true prophet in the true sense of the word ‘prophet’ and that if not all but most of the messages that the Quran contain have Muhammad’s own words.
I will elaborate on my claims later in this write up.
Mr. Zakaria pontificated: “The common trait amongst these so-called ‘freethinkers’ is their obsession with demonising Islam simultaneously lacking the ability to elaborate on their alternative that is as comprehensive and convincing as Islam with its more than 1.5 billion followers, 1500 years of survival and its constant rising popularity. Dispensing allegations and criticisms, without providing a comprehensive alternative that can rival Islam prove that these ‘freethinkers’ are intellectually bankrupt as well as cowards and hypocrites; - because, even a school child knows how easy it is for a hooded individual to call everyone else ugly!”
My response: While making the above statement, Mr. Zakaria forgot two basic facts and these are: (1) Allah is All-Powerful and All-Knowing. It is not possible for any human to match His Wisdom and face His might, and (2) He voided all other religions and in their place, He established Islam, which He claimed is perfect in all respects.
Many freethinkers believe in Allah’s existence, but they question things that He is alleged to have said in the Quran as well as His wisdom that forms the cornerstone of the Islamic faith.
All freethinkers cannot suggest ‘an alternative that is ‘comprehensive and convincing as Islam,’ for doing this would mean that they are better and more knowledgeable than Allah is. Instead of inviting Allah to a debate, most of them prefer to engage the followers of Islam in discussions, with an intention of finding out if what they believe in, and follow in their lives, are really justifiable, logical and true.
Mr. Zakaria should be knowing that an old wine though tastes better, but its old age does not make it the best. The same thing applies to Islam; if its age is what he thinks makes it comprehensible and convincing, then how about Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, to name a few, all of which are older than Islam? Does not their long age make them more comprehensible and convincing than Islam?
As some teachers of the past have taught us, a large number of people’s belief in certain dogmas and precepts do not always make them the best. What makes them best are the quality of teachings and lessons they impart to their followers. Keeping this fact in his mind, can Mr. Zakaria show us something from the teaching of the Quran that is good for ALL the creations of Allah?
Mr. Zakaria stated: “The clearest evidence of their hypocritical and cowardly nature with pretence of being ‘rational’ lies in fact that they do not to elaborate on their alternative solutions as vociferously as they express criticisms of Islam and Muslims! My recent interaction with one anti-Islamic fanatic who runs a hate-filled website fulltime confirmed this point. He said he was on a mission to take Muslims out of Islam. But when I asked him where to, eventually and reluctantly he started to mention about his so called alternative formula.
My response: Why the alternative formula given to him by an unnamed respondent should not be acceptable to him? Why Mr. Zakaria is not able to consider the so-called formula an option that could replace Islam? Why he did not mention what the so-called formula was? If he is in the habit of rejecting others’ points without giving them his due thoughts, how can one debate with him, and meet his challenges?
By
resorting to outright rejection of others’ views, has not Mr. Zakaria placed
himself in the rank of the freethinkers he accused of wrong-doings in his
article I am responding to?
Mr. Zakaria stated: “The ‘freethinker’ went on to label the entire 1.5 billion Muslims as “animals” and “sub-humans” like a typical intellectual midget with a heart of a racist Nazi. Note while labelling the Muslims as animals he also confesses that he was born into a Muslim family, so surely that must also make him an animal too unless of course he admits to being a bastard child! Or he is just plain stupid not realising the implication of his own words!”
My response: I am sure Mr. Zakaria is not aware that bastards have great respect in Islam. They became caliphs and ruled over those who called themselves the true sons and daughters of their fathers. Muntasir (861-862 A.D) was one of the bastard caliphs, born of a Greek slave Habshiyah (Prof. Masusdul Hasan, History of Islam, Vol. 1, p. 234). This being the fact, Mr. Zakaria should not look down upon the bastards merely to justify his argument against the freethinkers.
Moreover, Mr. Zakaria should know that one does not become a bastard just because that person has changed his or her religion or that that person has become a freethinker. This is a dangerous position, to say the least, for Muslims to adopt in their arguments, especially given the fact that Muhammad himself was the product of a Pagan couple, but he abandoned his ancestral religion and became a Muslim at the age of forty. Can Mr. Zakaria use the same epithet for him, which he used for the freethinkers?
I do not know who or why one must label all the 1.5 billion Muslims as ‘animals.’ If someone has really committed this grave offence, in that case, that person must be made not only to amend his or her way of thinking, but also to apologize to the Muslims for his or her uncivilized remark against a whole community of people.
In order to judge if one has really labeled all the Muslims as animals, can I ask Mr. Zakaria to produce the relevant statement on News from Bangladesh for all of its readers to read, and to react against the committer of this serious offence?
Mr. Zakaria has stated: “These irrational rationalists constantly bark about why Muhammad (SAW) is not a Prophet based on their subjective allegations, which are also rooted in religion in the first place! If we disprove their charges, we only confirm is the innocence of the Prophet (SAW) but that does not establish his Prophethood.”
My response: The fact that Muhammad was not a prophet is borne out by the Quran. In it, he has mentioned the names of twenty-nine prophets. None of them is said to have looted caravans; uprooted their enemies from their homes; killed and seized the properties of their conscientious opponents, nor did they turn their enemies’ wives, daughters and sisters into slaves in order to satisfy their and their followers’ sexual appetite.
Only Muhammad had resorted to all the above stated heinous acts, purportedly to establish Islam, and that, too, with the help of Allah. Can Mr. Zakaria see the difference between Muhammad and the twenty-nine other prophets, Muhammad claimed, Allah had sent to earth to bring humans to His righteous path?
As far as I am concerned, I don’t believe that a prophet would resort to deadly violence in order to establish Allah’s rule over mankind. Prophets were those who shunned violence, and preached love and compassion even in the face of stiff resistance to their preachings and dogmas; Allah is one who does not need to kill with His own hands the very people He Himself created and who, according to Muhammad’s own claim, cannot do anything without His prior permission.
An example is necessary to clarify my above statement: We will hardly find a man who has killed his sons or daughters for the reason that they disobeyed his commands. Should we be able to find one, the whole world would not only castigate him with harsh words, he would also be deemed to be a mad person that induced him to kill his own sons or daughters.
So, when an ordinary human being cannot or does not kill his or her own sons and daughters, no matter how bad or disobedient they are, how can a sensible person believe that Allah, the Most Kind and Compassionate, would have authorized Muhammad to kill his opponents just because they had refused to believe in Him and in His unlimited power?
Mr. Zakaria clarified: “Any impartial observer really undertook an objective study of Islam one of the first questions would have been posed is: who is the author of the Quran. Especially considering that the Arabs of the time, including the most hostile opponents of Islam never claimed that the Quran was the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) or any other living Arab. In fact some of the opponent categorically stated that Quran was not the words of Muhammad (SAW). The decisive words (Mutawatir Hadiths) of the Prophet transmitted to us are clearly distinct from the wordings in the Quran in terms of style. The
style is very much part of the
character of the person.”
My response: Mr. Zakaria’s claim that “… most hostile opponents of Islam never claimed that the Quran was the words of Muhammad …” is based on his lack of knowledge of the Quran. The truth of the matter is that the Pagans did believe that what Muhammad was telling them was the outcome of the tutoring he was receiving from a man, its implication being that what the Quran contains are his own words. In response to the Pagans’ claim, Muhammad stated the following:
“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him is they wickedly point to is foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear” (Quran; 16:103).
On the question of the Quran’s authorship, I want Mr. Zakaria to know that Muhammad himself had claimed that what he was telling his followers came to him from Allah through inspiration (see Quran; 16:123 et al). Abdullah Yusuf Ali explained the meaning and implication of the word “inspiration” in the following words:
“Wahyun, Inspiration, is interpreted to be of two kinds: (1) a suggestion thrown by God into the heart or mind of man, by which man understands the substance of the Message, whether it is a command or prohibition, or an explanation of a great truth; and (2) verbal or literal inspiration, by which actual words of God are conveyed in human language. … (See The Holy Quran, Vol. 2, p. 1321).
The above scholarly discourse on the word ‘inspiration’ is supported by a storied hadith in which it is stated the Muhammad received his wahy either in his sleep or in a state of swoon. This goes to prove that Muhammad had received no instructions in Allah’ words; rather they were suggestions, which were thrown into his heart or mind for him to narrate them to his listeners in his own words.
Quran, therefore, contains what Muhammad had told his listeners in his own words, hence to claim that the entire Quran is the words of Allah is a fallacious and a misconceived notion.
Mr. Zakaria has referred to Muhammad’s so-called marriage with his adopted son’s divorced wife, which we freethinkers believe was an un-prophetic act on the part of Islam’s Prophet. I base my statement on the following reasons:
-At the time Muhammad had taken Zainab to his bed, the Pagans, who, Muslims claim, were illiterate and misguided, considered such an act as being licentious, and thus sinful. It was a long established belief of theirs, and Muhammad broke it with impunity, the impetus for it having come to him from none but Allah Himself.
The question is: even if the Pagans had been wrong on their above belief, did it interfere with their lives in any way? Was this belief harmful to mankind? If it was not, then what had forced Muhammad to break this belief, and for what good purpose?
-Contrary to Mr. Zakaria’s assertion, Muhammad was never married to Zainab. He took her to bed, claiming that Allah had given her in his marriage in heaven (Quran; 33:37).
-How many other marriages had Allah performed in heaven, and for which other prophets?
-Did Allah have Adam and Eve married in heaven? If not, why?
-If Adam and Eve had never been married, does it not mean that all of their descendants, including ourselves, are bastards?
-Believing that Mr. Zakaria is right in saying that Allah had permitted Muhammad to marry Zainab to “dissolve the notion of adopted ‘son’ in Islam as Prophets by definition define morality and ethics;” can I ask him: what was morally or ethically wrong with the Pagans who opposed an adoptive father’s marriage with his adopted son’s divorced wife?
-If Muhammad was setting an example by marrying Zainab, why did he not marry her in the social tradition that was prevalent in his time, and also why he had brought Zainab to his harem “without delay”? (See Martin Lings’ Muhammad, p. 213).
My response to Mr. Zakaria has become long. Before ending it, I would, however, like to make a brief comment on colonization and its impact on mankind.
Though mankind have experienced various forms of colonization in their history, the impact of Islamic colonization has been one of the severest. It not only converted its subjects to Islam through implementation of a divine pronouncement (see Quran; 9:29), it also changed their names, culture and traditions.
The British had colonized India, but it is not known that they had ever influenced their Indian subjects to change their names or culture. Conversely, Muslims went to Indonesia and under their influence, the Indonesians not only gave up their ancestral religions, they also changed their names and most of their culture and traditions.
There are many more points in Mr. Zakaria’s article, all of which need to be set straight through logical arguments. But I am not doing that, as doing so would make this response of mine very long. Nevertheless, I hope I have dwelt on most of the important points he has raised in his article. But should he feel that I should have responded to his remaining points as well, he can have my assurance that I would be too pleased to do so upon hearing from him in due course of time.
Regards,
Mohammad Asghar
March 1, 2005