[...] debated members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Students Association on Sharia law. The debate can be seen here as can my blog entries on it here and [...]
It's sad that some Al-ahmadeyya followers are defending the establishment of Sharia courts and implementing Sharia law, when they have been persecuted as minorities in countries like Pakistan under Sharia and the islamic inquisition. In a country like Egypt Sufi muslims and Coptic christians are supporting the secular parties against the Islamists, because they know that as minorities they will be victimized even more if Sharia is further implemented. One would expect the Ahmadeyyas to join the Secularists everywhere and oppose religious law which is bound to end up imposing the mainstream islam of the majority over their version of islam. The interpretations these two apologists present of islamic texts are almost fantastically utopian, but still inescapably misogynistic and repressive. Why should the man have the financial "responsibility" with which comes authority and power, but not the woman? Why should the man even be mandated to discipline his wife and not vice versa? Doesn't all this reinforce patriarchy and male-dominance, no matter how arbitrarily you choose to interpret the text without explicitly rejecting its "essence"?
I admire Maryam, it is not easy to oppose Islam. Islam is a religion that can not tolerate any kind of criticism. I am talking from experience. I lived in a society that Islam has power. Human right in Islam has no meaning. Human being has no place in their belief system because whatever they do they do it for Allah. The basis of Islam is God not man. We have to fight Islam but the thing is the real reason for the rise of Islamic, is capitalism and brutality of imperialism in the region. People tend to Islam because at the moment it is the only force that stand against imperialism. I know that is a backlash what people like maryam has to do is fight for a socialist alternative. Fight against poverty, inhuman Israel and USA and all states in that region (middle east).
I just watched this and as I watched him read his side, I not only wondered why he had to read it all, but if he was told to read said statement. Seems to me he might have been told to read it and to not divert from it. Secondly, why does Sharia need be measured by primitive stories in order to be valid judgments of Sharia? I read the Unholy Quran and it is FULL of crap, as well as violence, dehumanizing of women, inhumane behaviour, degrading behaviour, and primitive and barbaric treatment of people. ROFL! He does not know his Quran. I could show him where it said that a woman's testimony is 1/2 a man. Now where in the Quran does it teach to abuse the wife? What is scourging/whipping a person? I call cherry picking! His thinking is so twisted and bizarre, that it makes my chin drop! He's unbelievable. How can you believe a word he says when he is reading ALL of it, as though he was told to read it or else?
Why do people raise these things about Islam? Maybe people are learning about "Lying for Islam" in order to gain Dhimmis in dhimmitud, paying a dhimmi tax.
An Islamic government is a Secular government? ROFLMAO!
Has the English man read the Quran? He became a Muslim? So he's one more man who's brain went south? He too is cherry picking. Both men seemed to allow their brains to go south.
After reading the Quran for myself and long before seeing this, I agree with you Maryam, esp with the things I've read from various news sources about Islamic countries.
Islam itself most certailny is the problem. The motivation and legitimation for atrocities and inequality perpetuated in the Islamic world and against unbelievers derives from the core texts and teachings of Islam. Islam is inherently a political, military, expansionist ideology. It cannot be separated from it political motivations. The trilogy of Islam informs the entire manuscript called upon in its negation of human rights. It is not the result of perversion by certain countries or political powers. If you want a license for slavery, marital rape, hate speech, holy war, gender and racial inequality, look no further than the Quran, Hadith and Sunna.
@Lauren
In the debate and in the many comments on this website, the Ahmadi Muslims have again and again reiterated that the teachings of Holy Quran, and Sunnah are in full consonance with Human Rights.
It is the misguided leaders of Muslim countries who for their political gain commit grave atrocities and then cite Shariah/Islam for their actions. An intelligent person will see through this.
I will invite you to read the Holy Quran from cover-to-cover. You can easily read it here.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-Short-Commentary.pdf
In addition I invite you to also read a short biography of the Prophet of Islam(pbuh) to see how he applied the teachings of Islam in his life.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/muhammad_seal_of_the_prophets/
Tell me then if Islam teaches all those atrocities you mentioned in your post and that Holy Prophet applied them in his life?
Did he just cite the historical origins of Islam as an explanation as to why those injust and misogynistic verses are there in the Koran?
That they were written in a time when circumstances were different?*
I thought the Koran was the holy, perfect, ever-lasting word of Allah?
How come he didn't know that those would be grossly unfair one day?
*I actually agree, lots of the rules of old religions make sese in that place, time and power-system
Runmad,:
Premise 1: Things that negate human rights should not have political power.
2. Sharia law negates human rights.
I'll let you complete the syllogism.
Shariah is based on the Qur’an and hadith, not on political power.
Oh, if only that were true.
All I saw her do was condemn Islam based on political actions, without citing the Qur’an or Hadith at all.
You must have been watching a different debate, because I saw her reference several horrific items found in the Koran (wife-beating - Sura al Nisa 4:34) and the Hadith (stoning).
That is, you did not cite the Qur’an, but cited corrupted nations who claim to be following the Qur’an. If you can’t see the difference between the two, then this discussion is quite pointless.
Her goal is to remove sharia from political power, not go on a vision quest with you to discover 'True Islam,' whatever that is. If you can't see the difference, why are you commenting at all?
Maryam invited all Muslims who believe that Islamic theocracies are corrupting Islam and giving a bad name to Sharia to JOIN her. She is your natural ally. She's against these Islamic theocracies, too! So why is it that you protest Maryam instead of all these corrupting clerics? Why is the apostate the one who should study the Koran, and not Muslims actually interpreting and enforcing sharia?
Is it because you are less than sincere?
Dear friend, Ahmadis are happily willing to join with Maryam provided that she does not label Islam with the crude and incorrect interpretations of Islam by the Muslim states. I did not notice Maryam saying that (i might be wrong), but I did notice Johnny and Ayyaz speak of huge similarities between the two parties debating, that being both parties speak and stand against human rights violations and injustices. The difference is Maryam blames the religion of Islam and the Qur'an whereas we don't because we REALIZE that what Islam and Quran says and what many Muslim leaders do are two VERY different things.
The difference is Maryam blames the religion of Islam and the Qur’an whereas we don’t because we REALIZE that what Islam and Quran says and what many Muslim leaders do are two VERY different things.
So who is doing the damage to Islam's reputation? Maryam, or Muslim leaders? And given your answer, which are you protesting more?
The difference between you and Maryam is that Maryam is much more concerned with the lives of actual human beings, than with making sure everyone respects the word 'Islam.'
As the speaker to Maryam's left acknowledged, there ARE many, many versus in the Koran that are used as cover by domestic abusers. We're just as capable of reading what the Koran actually says as you are.
Quote: " So who is doing the damage to Islam’s reputation? Maryam, or Muslim leaders? And given your answer, which are you protesting more?"
Both, with greater weight on such Muslim clerics, because they are the source of misrepresentation of true Islam. We protest peacefully both as well.
Quote " The difference between you and Maryam is that Maryam is much more concerned with the lives of actual human beings, than with making sure everyone respects the word ‘Islam.’"
God knows best each individual's heart, but offcourse you don't believe in God. But we Ahmadi Muslims strongly care about human rights.
Quote " the speaker to Maryam’s left acknowledged, there ARE many, many versus in the Koran that are used as cover by domestic abusers"
Same case with any law. Any law can be abused and is abused. Should that mean we should fight against all laws?
Same case with any law. Any law can be abused and is abused. Should that mean we should fight against all laws?
Two points:
1. I didn't say abused, I said used as cover. A man beating his wife is not abusing Sura 4:34; he's complying with it.
2. Really? That's the hill you're gonna plant your flag on? Because, strange as it may seem, I've never heard of a domestic abuser using VAWA as cover.
"Her goal is to remove sharia from political power, not go on a vision quest with you to discover ‘True Islam,’ whatever that is. If you can’t see the difference, why are you commenting at all?"
The debate was on whether Shariah negates human rights. The goal, as you've described it, doesn't appear anywhere in that description or title. Please don't make things up.
Shariah is based on the Qur'an and hadith, not on political power. Therefore, she was required to cite the Qur'an and hadith to argue that Shariah violates human rights. She did not do this. Thus, her argument was invalid. If she wanted to argue that Shariah being used in the political spectrum violates human rights, that would have been a different discussion, and that is a discussion we would have agreed with her on. Rather, she would have agreed with us on, as we have been saying this for 120 years, not just the last 3 years.
"Maryam invited all Muslims who believe that Islamic theocracies are corrupting Islam and giving a bad name to Sharia to JOIN her."
Really? I must have missed the invitation. All I saw her do was condemn Islam based on political actions, without citing the Qur'an or Hadith at all.
"She is your natural ally. She’s against these Islamic theocracies, too! So why is it that you protest Maryam instead of all these corrupting clerics? Why is the apostate the one who should study the Koran, and not Muslims actually interpreting and enforcing sharia?"
Who said we're protesting her? We're protesting her misapplication and misdiagnosis of the problem. The problem, as she well knows, is the politicalization of Islam, not Islam itself. Moreover, where was this atheist movement during the last 100 years when we were petitioning the UN, fighting for womens rights, demanding religious freedom? Where was the atheist movement when women couldn't vote, inherit, marry, divorce? Why are they speaking up NOW and only against religion? It's complete hypocrisy.
"Is it because you are less than sincere?"
No, it's because you think you are the savior of humanity by learning how to blame religion for the world's problems, and not realizing that it was Islam who gave women rights that the west is only now realizing and giving to women.
The bottom line is this. If I am going to criticize British law, I'll cite to the British Constitution. If I cite the actions of politicians in Britian, I'm missing the point. Likewise, if you are going to criticize Shariah Law, cite the Qur'an. All you're doing is citing Muslim politicians, and thus, missing the point.
I just listened to your portion of the debate on video. It would have been helpful if you cited to the Qur’an in your debate, as you do in this above blog post. THAT would have been a logical argument.
To be sure, the questions you bring up in this blog post are legitimate questions, so don’t think I am dismissing your argument. What I am dismissing, is the disingenuous tactic you used in the live debate. That is, you did not cite the Qur’an, but cited corrupted nations who claim to be following the Qur’an. If you can’t see the difference between the two, then this discussion is quite pointless.
I mean don’t you find it incredible that you bashed Shariah Law without citing a single verse of the Qur’an? Not a single hadith either! Incredible!
The fact that you admit this has nothing to do with Muslims being more devout, and everything to do with a politicalization of Islam is quite telling. Your issue, obviously, should be with th politicalization of Islam, not with Islam itself. By your logic, therefore, if Muslims were devout, then the corruption would not be happening. We Agree!
All you did in the video was complain about how women and minorities are mistreated in so called Muslim nations. Great, welcome to the club. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been condemning these acts for 120 years, long before your “enlightenment” 3 years ago when you started your anti-shariah campaign.
The difference is that Ahmadi Muslims put the blame where it lies, on the individuals committing the atrocities. We don’t give the abusers an excuse. Maybe you should consider doing the same – blame the individual, not the excuse they use. THAT is how you solve the problem. Do you blame the car or the drunk driver?
All you demonstrated is that nations are corrupt, just like every nation in the world. You think this economic crisis is happening because people were righteous? You think no atheists were involved there? Laughable.
Perhaps in the next debate against Mr. Khan and Mr. Butterworth, you can bring up Qur’anic verses and hadith to support your issues against Shariah Law. In the meantime, thank you for debating, however, as all you proved yet again is that not a single valid argument exists to denounce Islam.. God bless.
I try not to cite the Koran because it is a no win situation, particularly if I am speaking on behalf of One Law for All. In my opinion, in the first instance, this is a political battle not an ideological one so whatever anyone thinks or believes is their business to some extent. It becomes mine when it is in the public space. This is something many people agree with - secularism - including Muslims. And anyway even when I bring up the Koran when it is raised, the proponents always lie as I have evidenced here. The reality though is that no matter what I say or how I say it, you have taken the side that is most suited to your interests and beliefs as do we all.I'll leave it at that and just ditto Yakamoz to say - you can't defend Islam and human rights because they contradict each other. You have to choose one. I have made my choice and so have you. Debates are held not to persuade you but those who are undecided.
Your reactions are priceless - I've never seen two people say "oh for fuck's sake" with their eyes in so many ways. It was the only way I stayed sane during the parts where the dudes were mansplaining sharia to you.
21 Comments