| Rating: | ★ |
| Category: | Books |
| Genre: | Religion & Spirituality |
| Author: | Ibn Warraq |
After watching a presentation on C-SPAN about the release of a new book titled "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" given by the author itself, Ibn Warraq, I was reminded about one of his book released quite a while ago, titled "Why I am not a Muslim". After browsing some reviews of these books on several websites including amazon.com, I feel many people are led to believe apriori that the arguments the author presented in his book are valid and based on facts. A comment from a reviewer keeps me wondering: "We have not yet found any refutation of his thesis put forth in 'Why I am not a Muslim'. Instead of refutation we have seen violent and fanatic responses that only confirmed Ibn Warraq thesis." Is this true that currently there is no single Muslim scholar or intellectual who has spent his/her time and effort to refute Ibn Warraq's thesis in an academic rebuttal point by point (in form of book or academic journal)? I know in the U.S we have plenty of Muslim scholars and intellectuals, not to count many professors in Islamic universities in Europe, Middle East and Asia. I guess most probably they are all busy, but is this matter not important that it does not deserve an effort and time to write a response? I heard or read somewhere that this book was once presented to President Bush by the author after the tragedy of nine-eleven. And I believe it is possible that many world policy makers have heard or perhaps read this book to gain some insight into the teaching of this particular religion that is so much accused of influencing the mind of people to commit a violent act. Doesn't this issue have an impact on the ummah especially in the west, and, sooner or later, also in the world?
I borrowed the book from the library and tried to read it from chapter to chapter. There are a lot of opinions that the author uses for his arguments quoted from old and contemporary non-Muslim orientalists' works without any explanation on the basis of their arguments (the conclusion from these opinions are derived without examination and not supported by his own factual study). Although some Islamic references have also been quoted but they are used partially and taken out of context, or without looking into the basis of their arguments or their historical perspectives.
Although I am not an Islamic scholar or someone that has a formal Islamic studies education background, I can easily see the patterns shown in so many Islam-bashing articles or books:
First is the problem with the consistency in their belief. The authors often use pick-and-choose method when quoting stories, or verses from Islamic sources with the assumption that they are reliable according to their opinion in the first place (otherwise these will not be used to prove their case). If the authors believe in stories found in Qur'an, hadith and sirah books, will they believe also in stories about God's revelation to the Prophet, visiting angels, witnessed miracles, reports and testimonies confirming the fulfilled prophecy from contemporary Jews and Christians in time of the Prophet, and other amazing reports as well, found in the same sources that show the credibility of Islam? The main question is: "why pick some and throw some from the same sources?"
Next is problem with the context of a historical record they use in supporting their accusations. Without showing its context, a report or a story can be easily represented in many ways in order to shape the mind of the readers. Reading about a great man in the history is like watching a big colossal movie that consists of many series of episodes: to know the whole story we better watch all episodes. The movie audience will be misled if they are just shown some clips cropped from some episodes here and there. A good guy can be viewed as a bad guy or vice-versa. The truth can be potrayed as falsehood.
Next is the problem with interpretation. Majority of Muslims believe in two sources as the main basis of their belief: Qur'an and authentic hadith. Interpretations of these sources should be based on sound and valid arguments. There are different schools of thought (mazhab) that often differ in the interpretations and understanding of many fiqh issues (fiqh = laws-related) although they are based on the same sources. We need to look into the basis of arguments of an interpretation, including the situation and condition of the time when it was developed. Scholars' interpretations might be based on the contemporary knowledge and situation in their time. Muslims should not follow blindly any interpretation without knowing its basis. In addressing a fiqh issue, there are at least two main principles followed by all schools of thought with same aspiration: realization of public welfare and universal justice. This can be found in many books of fiqh of all schools of thought, however Islam-bashers just pick and choose teachings from any school of thought without realizing this fact.
Another thing is about trusting stories found in Islamic history books. Books of sirah (stories about life of Prophet, companions, or later generations) can only be considered reliable if their chains of narrators can be verified as in the case of hadith (which also can be reliable, non-reliable, spurious, etc.). This is so because many stories found in sirah books do not include chains of narrators as in hadith. At-Tabari in his book (often used by Islam-bashing authors in picking parts of their favorite stories) said:
"Let the person who reads through our book know that my reliance on whatever I recorded is on news and history with attribution to their narrators, without using intellect except in rare occasions. The knowledge of what had happened before, and what is going to happen at present time is not reached to those who did not see and their time did not allow them for it without being told by people and without the interference of intellect. Therefore, whatever news you find in my book about history that the reader may deny it or the listener may abhor it because he did not find it truthful according to him, then let him know that we did not present it ourselves, but it came from some of the people who narrated the story to us. We just presented what we have been told." (Tarikh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13)
Last thing is about convincing that Islam is "evil" to the readers. Majority of Muslims are peaceful human beings. This is not because they do not read their scriptures as many Islam-bashers claim. They read and understand their scriptures, and that is why they are peaceful. A lot of current problems in many Muslim countries are caused by political affairs. Islam-bashers should not put words into Muslims' mouth and trying to convince them about their "evil" religion. For example, Islam-bashers often tell people that real Islam teaches Muslims to hate and fight non-Muslims whenever and wherever. This is plainly refuted in many verses in the Qur'an, among them:
"God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them, for God loves those who are just." (Qur'an 60:8).
Similarly, terrorism is strictly forbidden in Islam. The Prophet of Islam strictly prohibits the killing of non-combatants and innocent people even in the time of war. But still Islam-bashers shout "Islam teaches terrorism!" This putting words into Muslim's mouth is an easy method to spread lies and hatred against Islam and Muslims. This effort intentionally or not can trigger hate crime against Muslims in our global community. We don't want this to happen in this already full-of-hate world where we live today, do we?
I hope this short review will be useful for those who need it...
And God knows best.
