QURAN OR TRANSLATIONS?

Ibn Warraq on How to Debate a Muslim 20.07.07 Note from Robert Spencer: The heroic and piercingly insightful ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq recently gave a talk consisting of a series of responses to some of the common assertions made by Islamic apologists. I am quite grateful that he has made his notes available for publication here. This is a refreshing and enlightening antidote to the usual dhimmitude we get from non-Muslim academics who engage Islam. 1. Do you know Aramaic or Hebrew? Muslims in general have a tendency to disarm any criticisms of Islam and in particular the Koran by asking if the critic has read the Koran in the original Arabic, as though all the difficulties of their Sacred Text will somehow disappear once the reader has mastered the holy language and has direct experience, aural and visual, of the very words of God, to which no translation can do justice. However, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs or Arabic speaking peoples. The non-Arabic speaking nations of Indonesia with a population of 197 million, Pakistan with 133 million, Iran with 62 million, Turkey with 62 million, India with a Muslim population of about 95 million, out- number by far the total number of native Arabic speakers in about thirty countries in the world estimated as 150 million. Many educated Muslims whose native tongue is not Arabic do learn it in order to read the Koran, but then again the vast majority do not understand Arabic, even though many do learn parts of the Koran by heart without understanding a word. In other words, the majority of Muslims have to read the Koran in translation in order to understand it. Contrary to what one might think, there have been translations of the Koran into, for instance, Persian since the tenth or eleventh century, and there are translations into Turkish and Urdu. The Koran has now been translated into over a hundred languages, many of them by Muslims themselves, despite some sort of disapproval from the religious authorities. [1] Even for contemporary Arabic speaking peoples, reading the Koran is far from being a straightforward matter. The Koran is putatively (in fact it is very difficult to decide exactly what the language of the Koran is) written in what we call Classical Arabic (CA), but modern Arab populations, leaving aside the problem of illiteracy in Arab countries [2], do not speak, read, or write, let alone think in Classical Arabic (CA). We are confronted with the phenomenon of diglossia [3], that is to say, a situation where two varieties of the same language live side by side. The two variations are high and low. High Arabic is sometimes called Modern Literary Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic, and is learned through formal education in school like Latin or Sanskrit, and would be used in sermon, university lecture, news broadcast and for mass media purposes. Low Arabic or Colloquial Arabic is a dialect which native speakers acquire as a mother tongue, and is used at home conversing with family and friends, and is also used in radio or television soap opera. But as Kaye points out, "the differences between many colloquials and the classical language are so great that a fallah (= farmer or peasant) who had never been to school could hardly understand more than a few scattered words and expressions in it without great difficulty. One could assemble dozens of so-called Arabs (fallahin or peasants) in a room, who have never been exposed to the classical language, so that not one could properly understand the other." [4] Though some scholars do allow for some change and decay, they paint a totally misleading picture of the actual linguistic situation in modern Arabic speaking societies. These scholars imply that anyone able to read a modern Arabic newspaper should have no difficulties with the Koran or any classical Arabic text. They seem totally insensitive "to the evolution of the language, to changes in the usage and meaning of terms over the very long period and in the very broad area in which Classical Arabic has been used." [5] Anyone who has lived in the Middle East in recent years will know that the language of the press is at best semi-literary [6], and certainly simplified as far as structure and vocabulary are concerned. We can discern what would be called grammatical errors from a Classical Arabic point of view in daily newspapers or on television news. This semi-literary language is highly artificial, and certainly no one thinks in it. For an average middle class Arab it would take considerable effort to construct even the simplest sentence, let alone talk, in Classical Arabic. The linguist Pierre Larcher has written of the "considerable gap between Medieval Classical Arabic and Modern Classical Arabic [or what I have been calling Modern Literary Arabic], certain texts written in the former are today the object of explanatory texts in the latter." He then adds in a footnote that he has in his library, based on this model, an edition of the Risala of Shafi`i (died 204/820) which appeared in a collection with the significant title "Getting closer to the Patrimony." [7] As Kaye puts it, "In support of the hypothesis that modern standard Arabic is ill-defined is the so-called mixed language or Inter-Arabic being used in the speeches of, say, President Bourguiba of Tunisia, noting that very few native speakers of Arabic from any Arab country can really ever master the intricacies of Classical Arabic grammar in such a way as to extemporaneously give a formal speech in it." [8] Pierre Larcher [9] has pointed out that wherever you have a linguistic situation where two varieties of the same language coexist, you are also likely to get all sorts of linguistic mixtures, leading some linguists to talk of triglossia. Gustav Meiseles [10] even talks of quadriglossia: between Literary Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, he distinguishes a Sub-

Standard Arabic and an Educated Spoken Arabic. Still others speak of pluri- or multi- or polyglossia, viewed as a continuum. [11] The style of the Koran is difficult, totally unlike the prose of today, and the Koran would be largely incomprehensible without glossaries, indeed entire commentaries. In conclusion, even the most educated of Arabs will need some sort of a translation if he or she wished to make sense of that most gnomic, elusive and allusive of holy scriptures, the Koran. You are asked aggressively, "do you know Arabic?" Then you are told triumphantly, "You have to read the Koran in the original Arabic to understand it fully." Non-Muslims, Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic. And yet they are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written? Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. So let me summarise: You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Paul Kurtz does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation. [12] You only need a critical sense, critical thought and scepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran, by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [13] which is totally different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it. Endnotes below. 1. See Appendix, Bibliography of Translations, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, edd. Beeston, Johnstone et al, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.502-520. 2. In Egypt, the rate of illiteracy is placed as high as 49.8 %, see Information Please Almanac, Boston, 1997, p.180 3. Charles Ferguson, Diglossia, Word, Vol.15, No.2 pp325-340, Aug.1959; William Marais, La diglossie arabe, LEnseignement public Revue Pdagogique, tome 104, no 12, 1930, pp.401-409; Alan S. Kaye,Arabic, in The Major Languages of South Asia, The Middle East and Africa, ed. Bernard Comrie, London, Routledge, 1990, p.181 4. Ibid., p.173. 5. B.Lewis, Islam and the West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.65 6. It is in fact becoming more and more westernized, i.e. de-semitized under the influence of the international news agencies. 7. P.Larcher,Les Incertitudes de la Poesie Arabe Archaique, in La Revue des Deux Rives, No.1, 1999,p.129 8. Kaye, op. cit. p.183. 9. P.Larcher, La Linguistique Arabe dHier a Demain : Tendances Nouvelles de la Recherche, Arabica, tome XLV, 1998, pp.409-29. 10. Gustav Meiseles, Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum, Archivum Linguisticum, vol. XI, Number 2, 1980, pp.118-142;quoted in P.Larcher,see note 10 above. 11. A.S.Kaye, Formal vs. Informal in Arabic : Diglossia, Triglossia, Tetraglossia, etc., Polyglossia Multiglossia Viewed as a Continuum, ZAL, 27, 1994, pp.47-66. 12. P.Kurtz, The Transcendental Temptation, Prometheus Books, Amherst,1986 13. There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is, see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says., Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2002. 2. Out of context Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the you have quoted out of context defense. What do they mean by You have quoted out of context? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword. Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves: Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say. For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of

Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind . Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country. The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished! Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does context mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context. The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point: Sura IV.34: As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context: Sura IV.34: Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme. If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word lightly in brackets after beat even though there is no lightly in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character. Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre. Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning fighting for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that make war in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them. Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated. First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). It is not for the Prophet,

and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire. (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers. In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral. The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses: IX. 38 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: March in the cause of God , you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men. IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons. IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them. The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels. As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 35: Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are! They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!.It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it. O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse. 3. Go to the Original Sources When you do debate with a Muslim make sure you are armed with all your references from the original Arabic sources. The major sources are all available in English, and are the Koran, the Sira or the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and the Hadith, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his companions. You must make the effort to familiarize yourself with these. Start with the Koran. It is not a very long text, about four hundred pages in the Penguin translation. Acquire at least four different translations, at least one of which should be by a Muslim. Yusuf Ali and, despite his name, Marmaduke Pickthall were Muslims, and their translations are easily available in paperbacks. At least one should be by someone whose mother tongue was Arabic, such as N.J.Dawood, an Iraqi scholar whose translation is quite readable. If you read French, I strongly advise you to acquire and read Regis Blacheres translation - it has copious footnotes which reveal the opaqueness of the Holy text, and the grammatical errors of the original Arabic. If you have read the Koran, you are already better informed of its contents than the majority of Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims have been genuinely surprised when I have apprised them of the verses preaching war, intolerance, hatred of Jews and Christians, misogyny, cruel punishments, etc. When you do read the Koran, read it with a highlighter in hand, and mark or underline the passages which preach intolerance, or which reveal injustice, cruelty and violence, absurdities, insults to women, contradictions, anti-Semitism, homophobic attitudes, superstitions, and, to be scrupulously fair, passages which teach morally acceptable principles. Someone has already undertaken just such a task at: http://www.skeptics annotatedbible. com/quran/ int/long. html. Our diligent skeptic found 511 passages of injustice, 384 of intolerance, 320 of cruelty and violence, 46 insults to women and just 60 passages of morally acceptable principles. Here are some anti-Jewish sentiments from the Koran: II.61: .Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them (that is, the Jews), and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allahs revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression. IV.44-46: Have you not seen those who have received a portion of the Scripture? They purchase error, and they want you to go astray from the path. But Allah knows best who your enemies are, and it is sufficient to have Allah as a friend. It is sufficient to have Allah as a helper. Some of the Jews pervert words from their meanings, and say, We hear and we disobey, and Hear without hearing, and Heed us! twisting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said, We have heard and obey,, or Hear and observe us it would have been better for them and more upright. But Allah had cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. IV.160-161: And for the evildoing of the Jews, We have forbidden them some good things that were previously permitted them, and because of their barring many from Allahs way. And for their taking usury which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming peoples wealth under false

pretense. We have prepared for the unbelievers among them a painful punishment. IX.29-31: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute [poll-tax] readily, and are utterly subdued. The Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, The Messiah is the son of Allah. Those are the words of their mouths, conforming to the words of the unbelievers before them. Allah attack them! How perverse they are! They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords besides Allah, and so too the Messiah son of Mary, though they were commanded to serve but one God. There is no God but He. Allah is exalted above that which they deify beside Him. IX.34: O you who believe ! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of a painful doom. V.63-64: Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and devouring of illicit gain? Verily evil is their handiwork. The Jews say, Allahs hands are fettered. Their hands are fettered, and they are cursed for what they have said! On the contrary, His hands are spread open. He bestows as He wills. That which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the arrogance and unbelief of many among them. We have cast enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they light the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it. They hasten to spread corruption throughout the earth, but Allah does not love corrupters! V.70-71: We made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them. But whenever an apostle came to them with a message that did not suit their fancies, some they accused of lying and others they put to death. They thought no harm would follow: they were blind and deaf. God is ever watching their actions. V.82: Indeed, you will surely find that the most vehement of men in enmity to those who believe are the Jews and the polytheists. V.51: O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who takes them for friends is one of them. V.57: O you who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians] before you, and of the disbelievers, as make jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah of you are true believers. V.59: Say: O, People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians]! Do you blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evildoers? V.66: .Among them [Jews and Christians] there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. XXXIII.26: He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book [Jews of Bani Qurayza ] and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you killed and others you took captive. V.60: Say: Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from God ? Those whom [i.e. Jews] God has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil. Worse is the plight of these, and they have strayed farther from the right path. Then pass onto the oldest source on the life of the Prophet, the Sira by Ibn Ishaq as quoted by Ibn Hisham. It is also available in an English translation. Again read it, with the same skeptical attitude and a highlighter in hand. It makes for very depressing reading. The biography is full of violence, cruelty, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Here are some of the passages from the Sira revealing Muhammads hatred of the Jews : 1. Kill any Jews that falls into your power said the Prophet: p.369 2. The killing of Ibn Sunayna, and its admiration leading someone to convert to Islam: p.369 3. The killing of Sallam ibn Abul Huqayq: pp.482-483 4. The assassination of Kab b.al-Ashraf ,who wrote verses against Muhammad: pp.364-369 5. The raid against the Jewish tribe of the Banul-Nadir, and their banishment. pp.437-445 6. The extermination of the Banu Qurayza, between 600-800 men. pp.461-469 7. The killing of alYusayr. pp.665-666 Finally, pass onto the Hadith or Traditions, which are also, fortunately, available in English. The collection by Bukhari, who died in 870 C.E., is the best place to start. The Hadith or the Books of Tradition are a collection of sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses. Apart from what Muhammad did and enjoined these traditions include what was done in his presence that he did not forbid, and even the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of the Prophet. These traditions serve as the theoretical basis of the Sharia or Islamic Law, and hence of Islam itself. Here you will find all that you suspected about Islam but were not sure where to look for. Jihad, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and the usual litany of violence and cruelty. Bukharis collection is highly regarded by the Muslims. Thus furnished with precise references to and quotes from the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, you are well-equipped to criticise Islam, and ready to debate any Muslim. URL: http://www.challeng ing-islam. org/articles/ warraq-debate- muslims.htm

Muslim Double Standards One thing that is sure to turn Americans and Westerners against Muslims, whether living in the West or elsewhere, are the double standards for Muslim vs. others' behavior. "Special rights" for Muslims violate everything the US stands for, and I can guarantee will not be tolerated by the citizenry. Already people are upset. Some examples of what I mean: *While religious beliefs of Christians (and often Jews) are looked down on and considered to be a mark of unsophistication by some elites, Muslim religious belief is often not seen in this way, instead as a positive expression of their culture. *Prayer in schools by Christians and Jews is an absolute no-no in US public schools, yet some schools give Muslims special prayer rooms and/or let them off for prayer. *Any criticism of Islam is attacked as "Islamophobia" or "racism" (even though Muslims are in no way a race) by Muslims, while their own publications criticize, denigrate, and ridicule other religions (such as Christianity and Judaism; Hinduism is also a target). *Hand-wringing over whether Muslims are discriminated against or have their beliefs denigrated, contrasted with total indifference to what Muslims do to others, whether attacking others or discriminating against them or inciting hatred towards them (the infamous Nazi-levels of Jew hatred throughout the Arab world and even in the West, ignored by organizations like CAIR while getting very upset by any criticism of Islam or Muslims, even when the person in question is a convicted terrorist or murderer). *One-way "dialogues" in which Christians and Jews are told they must be more accepting and tolerant of Islamic beliefs and practices, while Muslims are NOT told they must accept and tolerate other beliefs, instead they are more likely to be told, or claim, that they are "victims" of the West and Western imperialism (cf. John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University). *This one is one of my pet peeves -- Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals are excoriated as being the most unenlightened brutes on earth for their views (anti-abortion, the importance of religion in daily life, the missionary activities, etc.), trying to force their religion and beliefs on everyone else, while Muslims, who have similar or more extreme views and who also feel the need to proselytize endlessly, are given an absolutely free pass, even praised for their "diversity." (Exception given to those that do see the danger from Islamic fundamentalism.) It is disheartening to me to see some parts of the Left, liberals, etc., totally sell out what are supposed to be their "core" issues (abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of _expression) on the altar of being "sensitive" to Muslim concerns and "cultural relativism.". I cannot and will not support any group or organization that won't uphold their vision of human or women's rights in ALL cultures, instead of claiming that somehow, people in other cultures just don't have those rights because of their culture ("women in Muslim cultures are happy wearing the veil and being under the control of men, and we don't have any right to judge" -while Muslims have no problem judging Western women as "whores" who can be had at any price, and Western culture as completely degraded and decadent.) Since I support women's rights in all cultures, I find "cultural relativism" to be quite an ugly thing, especially since Muslims sure don't subscribe to it--they (generally) think Islam is the greatest and that all should live under it!

*Subset of the above -- complaining about how some (typically "Christian fundamentalists" or "the religious right") want to "turn the clock back" on women's rights in the US, but ignoring or refusing to condemn the low status of women in Muslim lands, or even in Muslim enclaves in the West. Or excoriating "pro-lifers" and their arguments, while giving respectful attention to strict Muslim views on abortion rights. (Special kudos for those groups who denounced the treatment of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and groups working to improve the status of women in Muslim lands.) Similar is the claim that women in the West are really no less oppressed than those in the worst Islamic hellhole, suggesting that the person in question really needs to get out more and see more of the world. *Whitewashing of Islamic history, while the same atrocities committed by others are denounced. For example, slavery in the Americas is rightfully denounced as one of the worst tragedies in human history, but Muslim slavery is often portrayed in a somewhat positive light, with claims that Muslim slaves were treated well and often freed. The fact that the Arab African slave trade lasted for over 1,000 years and was often unspeakably brutal is not mentioned. In the PBS program "Islam: Empire of Faith," the devshirme, the stealing of Christian children from their parents to serve as slave soldiers was portrayed in a rather positive light, and it is claimed that it allowed those born of poor families to rise to high status in the army. What if it was claimed that African slaves were done a "service" by being enslaved and brought to the Americas? Also, while Western imperialism and colonialism, which lasted for a relatively short period of time (about 30 to 200 years, depending on the place) is denounced as pure evil and the cause of all problems in Muslim lands today, Arab imperialism and conquests, which lasted much longer, is positively portrayed (the greatness of the Arab Empire is extolled), and even the Turks, whose empire lasted over 500 years and covered the vast majority of the Arab world, are not berated for their imperialism. *Outrageously, some Westerners actually either apologized for or even supported the death-fatwa on Salman Rushdie for publishing The Satanic Verses, because it "offended Muslim sensibilities," while Muslims make all kinds of statements offending Western sensibilities! I guess the right of Muslims not to be offended or feel uncomfortable, in this view, outweighs the right of Salman Rushdie (and other writers critical of Islam) to live! So much for "freedom of speech and _expression." Similarly, there are many critical books written about how Judeo/ Christian sources are unreliable, and there are documentaries on PBS about the current status of Biblical studies, while in all too many Islamic studies programs, the Muslim sources are taken at face value, not to be questioned, and PBS shows mostly sugary documentaries about Islam, such as Islam: Empire of Faith and Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet, both of which are sold on Islamic websites, and were explicitly seen by Muslims as da'wah tools (calling to Islam, proselytization). (This Atlantic article, which I have linked to before, has some info on this subject). *Complaints about how poorly Muslims are treated in non-Muslim countries and discriminated against, with no comment on the discrimination and lack of freedom of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. Or else there will be a bland comment about how Islam "allows religious freedom" and is tolerant of other religions, but with no detail given (the Pact of Umar, which I will cover soon, spells out just how "free" non-Muslims were), contrasted with, for example, the Inquisition, with not a word said about pogroms and massacres of Jews and Christians (and others) in the Muslim world, or about the condition of dhimmitude, the second (or more like third) -class status of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, which is often flat-out denied. ("Everyone lived in peace and harmony together in Andalusia and Turkey!

Never mind that there are numerous reports of the poor status of Jews and Christians, as well as stuff like the 1066 massacre of the Jews of Granada, or the numerous reports in the 19th century of just how dismal life was for non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.) In any case, the traditional Muslim conception of the "dhimmi," even though it may have been better than being burned to death under the Spanish Inquisition, is emphatically not an acceptable model for religious "tolerance" today, no matter how much Muslim apologists may claim it is--only total equality, and not "protection," is acceptable. *Finally, excusing of or completely ignoring Muslim atrocities against nonMuslim or Muslims, while any action by non-Muslims against Muslims is a horrific outrage, a war crime on the scale of WWII or the Holocaust (frequently denied by many Muslims, incidentally). Muslims must have the same rights as everyone else--no more and no less. If nobody can pray in school, that means Muslims can't have special rights to pray either. If Christians and Jews are allowed to take their holidays off, so can Muslims. If Christianity can be criticized and trashed, so can Islam. Muslims must also be held to the same standards of behavior--no more excusing of terrorist acts, while the same things done by someone else would be cause for complete and unequivocal condemnation. Muslims and nonMuslims must have the same rights in Muslim societies, just like Muslims are first-class citizens of the US and other nations. Only in this way will Muslims and non-Muslims be able to coexist and live in harmony.

TWO QUESTIONS TO MUSLIMS- WITHOUT ANSWER

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari When my article THE WORLD COMMUNITY OF MUSLIMS: Shackled People enslaved by the Koran appeared in the FFI website on December 11, 2007, a Muslim, in the nickname of a believer, commented that I was a rat and shouting from a rat-hole. He asked me to come out of the rat-hole and face Dr Zakir Naik, so that I may refresh my knowledge of Islam and get myself enlightened. He also said that Zakir Naik is capable of tackling a billion kafirs like me. I therefore decided to come out of my rat-hole and put ten questions to Zakir Naik on Islam in my article A Few Questions to Dr Zakir Naik on Islam which was posted in the FFI website on February 17, 2008. But till today, Zakir Naik has not come up to give replies to my queries. It is really amazing that a wise pundit like Zakir Naik, who can tackle billions of kafirs like me, is taking so much time to give reply to my very simple questions. This has led me to apprehend that he has no reply to offer. Furthermore, in two subsequent articles, Allah in the Vedas: Treachery of Dr Zakir Naik and Muhammad in the Vedas: Asinine Arguments of Dr zakir Naik , I have denounced his claims that the Vedas mention Allah and Muhammad. But till today, there has been no indication that he would come forward to establish that his claims were genuine and my arguments were baseless. Every intelligent reader might have understood that Zakir Naik will never show his face again as it is not possible for a liar to withstand the heat of truth and he has, perhaps, taken shelter in a rat-hole. I therefore ask that learned reader a believer , who advised me to face Zakir Naik, to request him to come out of his rat-hole and give replies to my questions. But this author is more or less confident that Zakir Naik will not be able to find replies to my questions in his glorious Koran and in other Islamic scriptures as those books are stockpiles of lies, falsehood and contradictions. The creed of Islam, as I have understood after studying the creed for last 30 yrs, is an extremely brittle glassware hanging from the ceiling with the help of a delicate thread called the Kalima Taib that says La Ilaha Illallah, Muhammadur Rasulullah ( Allah is the only God to be worshipped and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah). If the thread breaks, the entire creed of Islam will be broken into pieces. Or in other words, Islam will evaporate if the belief in Kalima Taib weakens. One should notice that the first part of the said Kalima Taib, i.e. La Ilaha Illallah does not pose a serious threat to Islam, but the seond part, i.e. Muhammadur Rasulullah, does. If the belief in the Prophet-hood of Muhammad weakens, Islam would collapse within seconds. So Muhammad should always be projected as the greatest man on earth. He should be projected as an apostle of peace by concealing his violent and most cruel deeds like massacring the Koreiza and Najir Jews. Divinity must be be sought in his marrying so many wives in his declining years, including his marrying Ayesha at the age of 52, when Ayesha was a child of 6. And his marrying Zeinab, the wife of his adopted son Zeid. Any rational

comment on his life and deeds is to be declared a blasphemy and the commentator must be punished with death because the image of Muhammad is to be protected at any cost. This is the reason why Muslims are ready to tolerate even a criticism of Allah, but not of Muhammad. To every Muslim, he should be projected as ideal of Muslim behaviour or usha-in-hashna. What Muhammad said is to be followed strickly word by word and each and every Muslim should copy what he used to do without any question whatsoever. Muhammad used to lick his fingers after having meals, so every Muslim is to do the same in a likewise manner. Muhammad disliked dogs and hence it not permissible for a Muslim to keep a dog as a pet. Muhammad disliked playing of chess and hence playing chess is forbidden for Muslims. Muhammad asked his followers to keep their beards and shave their mustaches so that they could be easily identified, and hence every Muslim has to keep beard and shave mustache. Every Muslim around the world should perform ablution before prayer exactly in the same way as Muhammad used to do 1400 years ago, and so on and so forth. But difficulty arises if the believers try to copy all his deeds. Muhammad married his daughter in law Zeinab and if all the Muslims decide to imitate that holy sunnah of their Prophet, the situation will be extremely chaotic. Muhammad married 6 year-old Ayesha at 52, and if the believers proceed to follow this holy Sunnah of the Prophet today, they will be convicted, in any civilized country, of raping a child and put behind bars. Muhammad married Maimuna when he was in the state of muhrim (clad in the special pilgrimage garb called ihram). If all the pilgrims today, who proceed to Mecca to perform Hajj pilgrimage, want to marry a wife following the holy Sunnah of the Prophet, one can imagine how chaotic it would be. Muhammad kept 12 (or 22 according to the Shias) wives and if his followers try to imitate the Prophet in this aspect, they would be victims of Allahs wrath, as He has not permitted them to increase their number wives beyond four at a time. Though it is more or less certain that Zakir Naik would never come out of his rat-hole to give reply to my questions, I would like to place before him a few more questions on Islam. Question No. 1 In one of my earlier writings, I have shown that Allah is not circumcised. According to the Hadith (Muslim-2872), Allah created Adam in His own image and hence simple commonsense says that, had Allah been circumcised he would have created Adam circumcised. And as a consequence all the believers would have born with natural circumcision and they would not need to undergo artificial circumcision after birth. The argument proves that Islamic God Allah is not circumcised. But the question remains Was Prophet circumcised? In fact, circumcision was a Jewish practice and Sir W Muir, in this regard says, The practice is incumbent on Muslims as a part of the Sunna (custom or example of the Prophet), but it is curious that we have no authentic account of Mohammads own circumcision. (The Life of Mahomet, Voice of India, New Delhi 1992, p- 191). When the Prophet died, attendants were prevented from making the body naked or looking at his naked dead body either, during the ritual bath before burial. To narrate the incident, Sir W Muir writes, A heavenly voice was heard ordering not to bare the Prophets body, for the eyes of any one that looked upon his nakedness would forthwith be destroyed. (ibid, p-191). So my humble question to Zakir Naik is Was the Prophet circumcised? Did any one of his wives, who only had the opportunity to see or feel Prophets private part, narrated any hadith in this regard? Question No. 2 During Meraj, the Prophet saw that all the earlier Prophets were living in heaven. So it seems that, Prophets were allowed to enter Allahs paradise just after their death and it was not necessary for them to wait in their graves till Qiyamah. So, one may conclude that Prophet Muhammad has already entered Allahs paradise after his death and having good times there with houris and gelemans. Contrastingly, scriptures also say that, on the Day of Last Judgment (Qiyamah), the Prophet Muhammad would be the first man to enter Allahs paradise with 70,000 followers. So, it becomes difficult for a kafir like me to ascertain where the Prophet is now staying. Has he gone to paradise, or is he lying in his grave and waiting for the Qiyamah? Hope that the wisdom of Zakir Naik will be able to remove my confusion in this regard.