Dialogue with a Deluded, Deceptive Muslimah
23 Dec, 2008
Noorunnisa Kutty wrote:
I happened to chance upon your site, and am amused to see that the same hatred you claim is inherent in Islam is still the main characteristic of all your writings. Maybe it is not the religion that was at fault, but something inside you. I have been a Muslim for over three decades and apart from the inner peace that worshipping The Most Compassionate has given me, it has been my guide, God be praised, in living in peace with my non-Muslim neighbours, who include Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists. It is sad that your experience has not been the same ... I pray that with genuine introspection, one day Allah will guide you all and maybe even some of your readers back to the fold of Islam. After all, He has said that He guides only those who wish to be guided. There is truly no compulsion in religion, and to you is your way of life, and to me mine :-).
MA Khan's reply:
Thank your for the comment.
We do not have any religion. We are former Muslims, now consider
ourselves freethinkers, humanists.
We have promised to tell the truth about Islam and we just do
that. If you think our venture is full of hatred, then blame our
telling the truth about Islam and nothing else.
We know that most Muslims, who know little about the contents of
the Quran, Sunnah and Prophetic Sira, or ignore them, are good
people. (My family people, parents, brothers, sisters and their
children are Muslims and good people. But a couple of my nephews
fume over my freethinking stand. If they would know that I criticize
Islam too, they might even kill me.) The ones, who take up the
teaching of Allah---theoretically binding on them---are causing all
the terrorism in the world.
BTW, you are changing Allah's words in saying: "He has said that He guides only those who wish to be guided." The correct verse is: "Allah guides him whom He wills."
Muslims are masters of deception; you are no exception. However,
be aware of the consequence of changing Allah's words.
We assert that Islam encourages terrorism; the Quran is a manual
of terror. We have challenged Muslims to debate on this. If we are
proven otherwise, we have promised to close this site. Here is a
latest debate; the Muslim guy, who wanted to close our site by
proving us wrong, left conceding the violent nature of Islam:
Challenge to Close Down Islam-watch - MA Khan & Ahmed
You are wrong on many accounts, I am happy to say. Those who know Islam well, the Qur'an well and the life of the Prophet well have no difficulty condemning terrorism, and to live in peace with others. We know the verses in the Qur'an that specifically condemn the destruction synagogues and temples, or any house in which God is worshipped. We know of the duty to spread the wisdom of submission through beautiful language. We know that we should not mock other religions. We know that kindness and compassion is not due only to those who believe but to all, except those who actively seek to put our own lives in danger, in other words, self-defence is the only reason to resort to arms, and even then excess is prohibited. If you deny that right, then you would not have the right to call yourself humanists, for you would be aligning yourself with terrorists then.
Apostacy per se was never a crime in Islam, as the Prophet (pbuh) taught. We know that the Prophet (pbuh) even had a son-in-law who had apostated, and that he was never killed. In fact he was allowed to visit his children and continue to conduct business with the Muslims in Madinah because he did not commit any aggression against the Muslims.
You accuse me of deception. But the interpretation that I gave to the verse we dispute is just one example of the fact that the language of the Qur'an is open to many meanings. The interpretation I gave to the verse (which repeats itself in many parts of the Qur'an) is neither my own nor a new politically correct one. It is an interpretation given in some of the oldest Arabic commentaries of the Qur'an, and if you search with the correct intentions, God willing, you will easily find the sources I use. On the other hand, if you prefer the interpretation of the devil, that is your choice, and it is for God to decide what your ultimate destiny is.
But yes, many ignorant people have been brainwashed into committing atrocities in the name of Islam by people who have interpreted the Book of God wrongly, whatever their reason. But please don't accuse every Muslim who is good of being a fool, it just doesn't reflect very well on you.
Btw, I just had a look at the comments section of your website, and have received enough proof of your malicious intent. The only two comments you have included there against your site are by ranting Muslims (of course I now have reason to believe these are fabricated :-), while the 'voice of calm reason' emanates from those for your site.
Why have my comments not been posted?
If your intent is honourable, then I invite you to post this whole correspondence on your comment page, and allow every visitor to your site to decide for themselves whether it might be worth to learn more about Islam before indulging in hate. You may save the lives of a few Muslims who may be in danger because of the extreme hatred propagated on your site, and you may even be the way for some to Islam in the process :-).
MA Khan: I am interested in publishing your nice comments as an article in our site. Would you please include the verses, you say, you know about the claims you have made? Without those verse, our readers would be confused; every one should.
Ms. Kutty: Gladly, if you would guarantee that the article I write will be published, and without any censorship at all.
MA Khan: Yes. I intend to publish it as an exchange between us. We never do censorship. We are not a Muslim site, where Kafirs will never see their works, even a censored one. When we publish anything from Muslims, we publish it 100% original.
Ms. Kutty: I am afraid I cannot agree to that; what I agreed to is to write an article substantiating my claim (which you will publish as such in your website).
There, I ended the communication not to waste my time.
It seems like Islamic Websites would publish our articles. We can't even expect to see them publish our articles with their refutations. Having said that, let me conclude this post by making a some comments on the many high-flying claims Ms. Kutty has made; Muslims always do. Not to make it too long, I will comment on only two of her deceptive claims:
1. Ms. Kutty claims: "We know the verses in the Qur'an that specifically condemn the destruction synagogues and temples, or any house in which God is worshipped."
I have come across no verses in the Quran, but I acknowledge that it may be because of my lack of thorough knowledge of the Quran. However, if such verses are there in the Quran, then Prophet Muhammad had obviously violated them time and again.
What happened to the Synagogues of Jewish tribes of Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad had exiled en masse, and of Banu Quraiza, whom he had slaughtered? Muhammad violated Allah's commands three times here.
Ms. Kutty should know that the Ka'ba was a polytheistic temples; Muhammad destroyed that idol-temple and converted into an Islamic mosque. He disregarded Allah again.
Having destroyed the Ka'ba, Muhammad sent Khalid al-Walid to destroy the temple of al-Uzza at Nakhla [Ibn Ishaq, Karachi, p565]. When the Taifites made their submission to avoid decimation by Muhammad, they pleaded with him to spare their temple of al-Lat. Muhammad disregarded their pleas and Allah's command, sent his armed brigands to destroy it.
These are but a few examples of Muhammad's destruction of religious places of non-Muslims. If Ms Kutty is correct that Allah commanded to respect places of worship of non-Muslims, then Muhammad disregarded impotent Allah with utter disdain.
Muhammad's destruction of non-Muslim places of worship was just the beginning; tens of thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed by Muslim invaders and rulers of India. Most of the 30,000 churches that stood at the beginning of the Abbasid rule (750 CE) in the Muslim empire were destroyed by the time the dynasty ended (1250 CE).
2. Ms. Kutty, obviously out of her utter ignorance, claim that apostasy is allowed in Islam, when apostates have suffered harrowing punishments ever since Islam's birth. I hope, Ms. Kutty is aware of Abu Bakr's Battle of Apostasy (ridda), which he won at spilling a great quantity of blood.
She says, "Prophet (pbuh) even had a son-in-law who had apostated, and that he was never killed."
Which son-in-law is she talking about? Muhammad only had two sons-in-law: Ali and Othman, neither of them ever apostatized.
During Muhammad's life, we come across one case of apostasy. One of his secretary, whom he had employed for writing down his revelations. He was discovered to have to modifying Muhammad's verses inserting his own words. Muhammad ordered his murder but the guy was able to flee with his life to Mecca and return to paganism.
This should make it clear to readers the kind of lies and deception the most educated Muslims take recourse of.