Debate with Ismahan Levi

Debate with Ismahan Levi

Ismahan is an Arab lady who says she used to belong to the fold of Islam. She is now an avowed Atheist. Ismahan provides some good arguments and in almost every instance seems to have more knowledge of Islam than Dr Sina, which is not surprising at all (and we're sure Dr Sina would agree). As you know, any discussion / debate between a believer and an Atheist is pointless to the degree that both will try to prove what cannot 'seemingly' be proven. Nevertheless, as Muslims, we feel we can provide more of a challenge for Atheists than members of any other religion due to our concept of God as a single, intelligent force in nature which governs the whole of existence (as opposed to an old wrinkly grey-beard who resides on clouds, having relations with the odd virgin on Earth). Our correspondence began on 07 May 2002 with the following email...

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for the opportunity to make my views known. I recently
happened upon your web site and, as requested, read through some of your
articles fully and, to the best of my ability, with an open mind. I say
"best of my ability" because what to me may be an open mind may be
justifiably construed as being polemical in the extreme by another. This
aside, I felt strongly enough about some of your articles to write this note
to you.

As you will note from my name, I am of Arabic descent, married to a
Jew. I was disowned by my family and community whose views are based upon
the teachings of the Quran which states, more or less, that while a
Muslim male may marry a Jewish or Christian woman (provided their
children, if any, are brought up as Muslims), a Muslim woman may not marry
anyone but a Muslim man. This teaching was, in my case, verified by the
local Imam whose word carries weight, despite another of your articles'
claim that Islam does not have a priesthood.

I was surprised, therefore, to read a statement in your article on
interfaith marriages which implies that interfaith marriages are allowed.
While this is technically true, it isn't complete.

Permit me to go a step further. I decided after years of self-debate to
renounce Islam for very simple reasons. Islam, as is the case with
Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al, has a fight on its hands to prove
the existence of any god, leave alone a specific one. Moreover, when any
religion claims to have the specific word of a god written in a
so-called holy book, it behoves that religion to prove the validity of the
book. By definition, an omniscient and omnipotent god's word (book) must
necessarily be free of contradiction and falsehood as, for instance, is
claimed by the Quran. The demonstration of even one such, no matter how
simplistic, refutes, the claim to divine inspiration. Thus, the theory
of meteors being missiles cast at spying djinns, apart from defying
credibility, does precisely that.

To rephrase an Austrian Emperor, those of your articles I've read are
emotional but do not convince.

May I ask that you make your guestbook available for public viewing or,
if it is, make a link to it more prominent. Thank you.

Permit me to finish this communication as I began by thanking you for
the opportunity to respond and make my views, for what they are worth,
known. I also state that I do not, to the best of my knowledge, know or
have met Dr Sina, or concur with some of his views.

Regards,

Ismahan Levi

Our first reply...

Dear Ismahan,

We have to acknowledge truth of your claims and we do sincerely apologies if you feel we were not presenting the essential facts correctly. The said article has been noted and a change will be made soon to reflect your points which are more than fair. Though, please do understand this was not meant to in any way mislead. The context of the article is Mr Sina's constant brainwashing. Mr Sina uses the term "unbeliever" in a very loose way, and by telling half truths and making half baked conjecture is able to mislead the already somewhat badly informed public that Islam demands the demise of anyone who does not follow it! - which of course is absurd, because within the Quran there are guidelines for Christians and Jews as well as Pagans who do not make war against the Muslims - to live in peace with one another. Interfaith marriages and the permissibility of Kosher food is just an example of this forever meant to be method of rule.

I am curious to know if you have considered the views of Islamic scholars regarding the interfaith marriage issue. The general argument is that traditionally, (without being sexist) upon marriage the wife is a member of the husbands household. What the husband enjoins, generally the wife enjoins. What the husband dislikes, generally the wife dislikes (or comes to dislike). What the husband permits, the wife permits. What the husband celebrates, the wife celebrates. If that seems far too old fashioned for you then consider this: The man has always been the dominant specie, could 7th century Arabia have worked in the way you want it to? I doubt it very much. Upon entering the household of a Jewish or Christian man the wife would have to do pretty much as her husband demands of her (following on from the teachings of the OT and NT) which I’m sure your aware, on the whole, are less gender equal than the Quran’s teachings concerning women.

With that aside I personally have met two sisters who have reverted to Islam yet have Christian or Atheist husbands. For both, their reversions took place after their marriages. One Sister knows exactly what her faith demands of her yet holds back simply because she can’t stand to lose her husband. In such a situation I can only say: Your Lord knows best! No one except your Maker can ever know the true feelings you have inside, and everyone is to be judged upon their own merits and upon limits which apply to them in particular.

"Thus, the theory of meteors being missiles cast at spying djinns, apart from defying credibility, does precisely that."

Excuse me if I didn’t comprehend your exact belief but as a Muslim and student of physics and of the philosophy of science I constantly battle with atheists regarding the referred to verse. If the idea of 'secret beyond matter' i.e. Jinn’s appears farcical to you, or the existence of God is something you sternly reject then that does not leave you in a very good position to be making claims that the above defies credibility. If you vividly accept that 'Jinn' which according to the Quran are a creation made of 'smokeless flame' (which are beyond the spectrum limit of what our eyes and camera lenses can register) actually exist and that they act as spies for their chief, Satan, then the above, as mythical and nonsensical as it seems, begins to make sense in the context it was meant to be inferred. Totally denying the first two realities will inevitably lead to a mocking of the third.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We must confess this is the most pleasant reply we have had from a non-Muslim thus far.

Yours,

ff.com

PS: We use to have a guestbook in which we freely allowed people to leave their comments, but this was proving to be a nightmare with the constant removal of offensive (racist), often obscene (links to pornography) content. We will however, soon launch a page whereby we aim to be including comments such as yours.

Ismahan's reply...

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your reply to my email regarding interfaith marriages and
Islam. I appreciate the time and effort taken. I also appreciate the
magnanimity of your response and thank your associates and you for it.

There are two points I wish to make in reply. Firstly, your response
raises issues which I will address. (Using accepted convention I will
copy your statements as they obtain within quotations and respond to them
immediately below.) Secondly, to the extent that mention is made of Dr
Ali Sina and his views, I believe he ought to be aware of our
correspondence; to this end I will send him a copy of this communication. With
this understanding, then, let us commence.

“…within the Quran there are guidelines for Christians and Jews as well
as Pagans who do not make war against the Muslims - to live in peace
with one another.”

This statement is, as before, correct but incomplete. It makes no
reference to the reality of Islam and its unique principle of abrogation
(suras 2:106, 13:39, 17:86, etc). While the Quran does initially state
that Muslims and others are to live amicably with each other, this
teaching is abrogated by later verses which state that Islam is to be “shown”
to people of other faiths who, if they refuse to acknowledge, accept
and follow it, are then are to be slain (suras 9:5, 47:5, and 8:39 among
others). These contradict sura 2:256, “There is no compulsion in
religion”. Since sura 9 was among the last to be “revealed to Muhammad”, it
logically abrogates sura 2:256. In the case of Christians and Jews
specifically, the Quran states they may continue to worship as their faiths
require with certain provisos: they pay a tax to worship as they
require, their temples of worship do not exceed in height those of Islam,
they acknowledge the supremacy of Islam, etc. The principle of abrogatio
n extends to other matters too. Suras 2:142-144, 24:2, 8:65, 66, etc
are examples of this concept. Further reading of the Quran and Bukhari
will authenticate these claims and those of Dr Sina.

The above lead to questions regarding abrogation. For instance, it is
claimed that the Quran is the exact copy of the perfect book that exists
in heaven. If it exists in heaven as a perfect book, why would it
contain verses that have been abrogated? If those verses were really to be
abrogated or forgotten, why were they in there in the first place?
Doesn’t it stand to reason that the heavenly book is either imperfect or the
Quran as we have it isn’t an exact copy? Also, what of the sequence of
abrogation? How does it make sense that one verse is followed
immediately by another that cancels it? How does it make sense that an earlier
verse cancels a later one? Why was the later verse revealed in that
case?

“I am curious to know if you have considered the views of Islamic
scholars regarding the interfaith marriage issue.”

Yes, I did consult with some Imams on this issue. Each of them made the
pointed (in my opinion) observation that the Quran is very plain in
this matter. A Muslim woman has no alternative to marriage to a Muslim
man. There are no exceptions.

“The general argument is that traditionally … upon marriage the wife is
a member of the husbands household. What the husband enjoins, generally
the wife enjoins. What the husband dislikes, generally the wife
dislikes (or comes to dislike). What the husband permits, the wife permits.
What the husband celebrates, the wife celebrates. If that seems far too
old fashioned for you then consider this: The man has always been the
dominant specie, could 7th century Arabia have worked in the way you want
it to? I doubt it very much.”

Tradition is an important part of life in countries in the Middle East
and elsewhere. Many of these have been interwoven into Islam. Thus we
have women thought of as dependent upon men and inferior to them (sura
4:34 et al). In the days of Muhammad, women may well have been dependent
upon men. This isn’t necessarily so today, especially not in secular
nations which allow for the Declaration of Human Rights. This aspect of
Islam was the product of and for a specific time and place and has
little, if any, relevance to today’s world. If Islamic nations were to
provide equal rights and opportunity to women and accept the Declaration of
Human Rights, I daresay this facet of Islam would become even more
irrelevant.

This tradition you refer to is one perpetuated by men that a woman is
somehow inferior and unable to make decisions about herself by herself.
Does this tradition, which finds an echo in the Quran and the works of
apologists like at Tabari, et al, have any relevance whatsoever to
those single women in secular nations who decide to live alone or in a
relationship not sanctioned by organised religion? Are such women inferior
to any men in any way? I don’t believe they are. A woman scientist
heads the organisation for which I work. She is accomplished, intelligent
and lives in a de facto relationship. How is it assumed that she is
incapable of looking after herself, deciding what she wishes to do or
inferior to a man in any way? I daresay there are several other instances of
such persons. Don’t their very existence, accomplishments and way of
life disprove the Quran’s statement on male superiority?

In regard to traditional dominance I suggest a body of evidence exists
to indicate man has not always been the dominant gender, as
anthropologists will verify.

“… I personally have met two sisters who have reverted to Islam yet
have Christian or Atheist husbands. For both, their reversions took place
after their marriages.”

As you note, in both cases the husbands are either Christian or
atheist. I imagine these situations obtained in a secular nation. Could the
same be said of Muslim husbands in Muslim countries or elsewhere? Would a
Muslim husband permit the Muslim woman he married to become a Christian
or atheist and remain married to her? Would he then permit her to live
her life as a Christian or atheist yet continue to love and respect
her? Would he permit her to instil in their children Christian or
atheistic and Islamic values and allow them to decide upon their beliefs as
they grow? I confess I cannot see that happening. My Jewish husband
married me as a Muslim and accepts fully my atheistic views and values
despite his religious convictions. For instance, we do not eat kosher / halal
meat because, in my opinion, the killing of animals by traditional
methods is inhumane and needless. Can you see Muslim men doing likewise?

“Excuse me if I didn’t comprehend your exact belief but as a Muslim and
student of physics and of the philosophy of science I constantly battle
with atheists regarding the referred to verse (meteors and djinns – I.
L.). If the idea of “secret beyond matter” i.e. Jinn’s appears farcical
to you, or the existence of God is something you sternly reject then
that does not leave you in a very good position to be making claims that
the above defies credibility. If you vividly accept that “Jinn” which
according to the Quran are a creation made of “smokeless flame” (which
are beyond the spectrum limit of what our eyes and camera lenses can
register) actually exist and that they act as spies for their chief,
Satan, then the above, as mythical and nonsensical as it seems, begins to
make sense in the context it was meant to be inferred. Totally denying
the first two realities will inevitably lead to a mocking of the third.”

In my opinion, this is convoluted reasoning and does not lend to
credibility. (Please refer to the website www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html which provides an excellent resource on the subject of logic and
logical fallacies.) According to your statements, I need to believe in
a god (specifically, that of the Quran) to understand and believe in
djinns and meteors cast at them. The fact remains that meteors are no
more than space debris, trapped in the Earth’s gravitational field, which
burn up on entering our atmosphere. This fact alone negates any claims
of supreme councils being spied upon, meteors (material objects) being
cast as missiles at djinns (immaterial entities), etc. Science
demonstrates that a meteor is space debris which burns because of the combined
effect of friction and speed. By deduction, isn’t the other explanation
rendered groundless and ineffectual? I wonder what Muhammad might have
made of Halley’s comet, the Aurora Borealis or the meteor impacts up
on Jupiter had he witnessed those. To quote a fictional detective,
“This world is sufficiently large for people; no spirits and demons need
apply.”

It is not my intention to enter into a debate on your religious beliefs
with your associates or you or, worse, attempt to impose my views upon
any of you. Your associates and you have, in my opinion, every right to
believe what you may and worship as you may. So too do those of the
Church of Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the followers of the Rev.
Moon. But as a corollary, no religion can claim to be superior to
another in any way. Moreover, when a religion or philosophy assumes a
scientific basis for its beliefs and tenets, it enters the public realm and
leaves itself open to scientific examination and criticism.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that some of the issues
you raise (in public and in correspondence to me) are, I believe,
illogical or incomplete in some respects.

Finally, and as before, permit me to thank you for the opportunity to
make my views known, for your time in this matter and for your patience
in going through what has become a rather lengthy correspondence.

Regards,

Ismahan Levi

Our second reply...

Dear Ismahan,

I will now respond using similar convention.

"This statement is, as before, correct but incomplete. It makes no reference to the reality of Islam and its unique principle of abrogation (suras 2:106, 13:39, 17:86, etc).."

Abrogation is by no means “unique” to Islam. The concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has practiced by God for eons – we are told of this within the Quran (i.e. how God relaxed or introduced certain prohibitions for mankind with each new messenger for their own benefit) and we can see evidences of it throughout the OT and NT. What we know is that the laws governing mankind (i.e., Shariah) change according to the needs of the society. But the concept of monotheism (i.e., Tawheed) remains the same. The Creator knows very well that his creation, the humans, need time and discipline to grow and mature, He reveals commandments and practices that help them develop both as individuals and as members of society. With that lets begin reading the said verses by applying some context...

O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): "Listen to us" but say "Look upon us," and be ye listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom. (2:104)

Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture nor the idolaters love that there should be sent down unto you any good thing from your Lord. But Allah chooseth for His mercy whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty. (2:105)

Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (2:106)

Knowest thou not that it is Allah unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and ye have not, beside Allah, any guardian or helper? (2:107)

Whilst the concept of abrogation is almost certainly a reality it does not exist to the extent you claim nor is the concept announced within the Quran as explicitly as some claim on the contrary abrogation is something which is interwoven into the proceedings of every day life and is overlooked. It takes places without people knowing and cannot be defined or extracted from a particular context. Western polemics use nothing but translation and ignorance of basic historical fact to come to the decision that abrogation of commandments sent by God (during the time of Mohammed) is admitted by God within the Quran. The above verse uses the word “abrogate” in a totally different context. For example the Arabic word “Ayah” cannot only mean verse, but is also used for things such as: signs, miracles of God, examples set forth, tokens, revelations. Lets read the parallel translations of verse 2:106:

Arabic: Walaqad atayna moosa tisAAa ayatin bayyinatin fais-al banee isra-eela ith jaahum faqala lahu firAAawnu innee laathunnuka ya moosa mashooran

Yusuf Ali: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?

Zohurul Hoque: Whatever of a message We abrogate, or We cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than that, or the like of it. Do you not know that Allah indeed is the Possessor of power over all things?

T. J. Irving: We do not cancel any verse nor let it be forgotten instead We bring something better than it or else something similar. Do you not know that God is Capable of everything?

T.U. Hilali-M. Khan: Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?

M. Pickthall: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?

M.H. Shakir: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

As for the other verses you have put forward which are supposed to be showing how God used abrogation during the time of Mohammed, I urge you to read in the correct context, in Arabic, and ask yourself once again if these are really describing abrogation of text in the Quran.

"While the Quran does initially state that Muslims and others are to live amicably with each other, this teaching is abrogated by later verses which state that Islam is to be “shown” to people of other faiths who, if they refuse to acknowledge, accept and follow it, are then are to be slain (suras 9:5, 47:5, and 8:39 among others). These contradict sura 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion”. Since sura 9 was among the last to be “revealed to Muhammad”, it logically abrogates sura 2:256."

Are you serious?

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” (9:5)

Osama Bin Ladin used the same verse within his fatwa to justify his new spree of attacks. This can be invalidated very simply. You are obviously trying to give the impression that the referred verse of the Quran is directing all individual Muslims from every era to declare a war against all 'pagans' of the world (actually those particular type of pagans are no longer in existence, therefore the verse would be void by now in any case). Nevertheless, it is a well known fact that the verse relates to a period, when an organized Muslim state existed in Medina and it was, in fact, this Muslim state organized under the leadership of the Prophet, which was directed to fight the 'pagans' in these verses. The Muslims, who are addressed in these verses are, in fact, addressed as citizens of an organized Muslim state, which had declared war against the 'pagans'. This is clearly the case in each and every one of the verses, which entail directives relating to Jihad.

Furthermore, the 'pagans' against whom fighting is ordained by the referred verses are not general in nature, but are actually only the polytheists of Banu Ishmael – historical fact. It should be clearly understood that the directive of fighting entailed in these verses relates specifically to God's law relating to the ultimate manifestation of Truth at the hands of His messenger. The implication of these verses cannot, in any case, be extended to anyone besides the direct addressees of the Messenger of God.

"Tradition is an important part of life in countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. Many of these have been interwoven into Islam. Thus we have women thought of as dependent upon men and inferior to them (sura 4:34 et al)."

I cannot for one moment believe that as an Arab speaking person you seem to think that 4:34 is teaching anything other than a basic fact of life – That men are both emotionally and physically stronger than women

"In the days of Muhammad, women may well have been dependent upon men. This isn’t necessarily so today, especially not in secular nations which allow for the Declaration of Human Rights."

I beg to differ. This is a very modern, supposedly liberal ideology which only (yet) exists as a front. Even in the secular society it does not hold true for the vast majority of females, though the situation may change in a few more decades. Even so Islam does not place any restrictions on these women.

"This aspect of Islam was the product of and for a specific time and place and has little, if any, relevance to today’s world. Is that so, just for Islam? Does it not apply to Christianity and Judaism as well as Islam. If Islamic nations were to provide equal rights and opportunity to women and accept the Declaration of Human Rights, I daresay this facet of Islam would become even more irrelevant."

I almost certainly agree with you that the so-called Islamic nations could provide much better equal rights and opportunities for women. Again this is due to traditional and cultural values. Western ignorance often pleads “In Islam the woman has no choice of marriage partner” – not knowing that arranged marriages are actually an ancient Hindu custom. Though isn’t it a bit hypocritical for the “civilized” Western nations to be supporting these corrupt regimes whilst decrying such behavior elsewhere? Equal opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia among others need to be reinstated but can only be achieved if these corrupt regimes can be toppled, but will it ever happen? especially when they exist to serve American interests! Do have a long and hard think about why it is impossible to reinstate full rights to people in certain parts of the world.

"This tradition you refer to is one perpetuated by men that a woman is somehow inferior and unable to make decisions about herself by herself. Does this tradition, which finds an echo in the Quran and the works of apologists like at Tabari, et al, have any relevance whatsoever to those single women in secular nations who decide to live alone or in a relationship not sanctioned by organised religion? Are such women inferior to any men in any way? I don’t believe they are."

I must intercede here. Apart from the basic fact that women are physically inferior to men the above is not true for Islam. There are various accounts (within the hadith) and also in the Quran of where women were allowed to discuss, make their own choices and argue with the Prophet on matters relating to marriage bond, wealth and property. Decision already made for them? I beg to differ.

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 199:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful for Allah's Blessings." On that, Allah's Apostle said (to her), 'Will you return his garden to him?" She said, "Yes." So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 206:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Barira's husband was a slave called Mughith, as if I am seeing him now, going behind Barira and weeping with his tears flowing down his beard. The Prophet said to 'Abbas, "O 'Abbas ! are you not astonished at the love of Mughith for Barira and the hatred of Barira for Mughith?" The Prophet then said to Barira, "Why don't you return to him?" She said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you order me to do so?" He said, "No, I only intercede for him." She said, "I am not in need of him."

Volume 7, Book 63, Number 227: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Hilal bin Umaiyya accused his wife of illegal sexual intercourse and came to the Prophet to bear witness (against her), (taking the oath of Lian). The Prophet was saying, "Allah knows that either of you is a liar. Will anyone of you repent (to Allah)?" Then the lady got up and gave her witness.

Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the Messenger of Allah, and she reported that her father had forced her to marry without her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice...(between accepting the marriage or invalidating it) (Ahmad, Hadith no. 2469). another version of the report states that “the girl said: ‘Actually, I accept this marriage, but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right to force a husband on them.’” (Ibn-Majah).

"According to your statements, I need to believe in a god (specifically, that of the Quran) to understand and believe in djinns and meteors cast at them. The fact remains that meteors are no more than space debris, trapped in the Earth’s gravitational field, which burn up on entering our atmosphere."

First of all: as always with what happens when Islam comes underneath the microscope a whole array of assumptions have been made before we have even bothered to consider what the Quran is describing. Just a belief in the idea of non-visible (to the human eye) matter would suffice furthermore we cannot make the assumption that meteors are what is being described.

Assumptions you have probably made:

Meteors are definitely what is being described.

Mohammed saw a meteorite in the sky and devised this theory.

The lower heavens are the skies of the Earth.

Scientifically meteors are not the same as stars yet the sensationalists continue to describe meteorites as ‘shooting stars’. But we are not of those kind! The only reason why they are visible is because they are so close to The Earth. Yes you are correct most meteors are tiny specks of dust and rapidly burn up in the atmosphere but is this what the Quran is describing? How can you be so sure? Why did you make that assumption? Is it because this could’ve been the only thing Mohammed could witness with his very own eyes? Isn’t your ends justifying the means?

Are you implying that space debris exposed to the gravitational field of Mars do not burn upon entering the atmosphere of Mars? (of course your not). Your ends is justifying the means since according to you Mohammed wrote the Quran, he would have no knowledge of matters on Mars, any planet, or of anywhere in space for that matter. Therefore the words he supposedly uttered were all related to what he was witnessing with his own two eyes. Since the Quran (as it tells us) is the word of an omnipotent omnipresent being, namely God, He would be in a perfect position to make such statements (even if the events he was relating took place a billion light years away from our own Earth).

"This fact alone negates any claims of supreme councils being spied upon, meteors (material objects) being cast as missiles at djinns (immaterial entities), etc. Science demonstrates that a meteor is space debris which burns because of the combined effect of friction and speed. By eduction, isn’t the other explanation rendered groundless and ineffectual? "

There is no contradiction between science and God, let me put it another way: “Science is God in action”. Again even if near-Earth meteors were what God is describing in those particular verses, could it not be that these meteors and the direction and speed (velocity) with which they arrived, progressed and eventually burned up was an ordained event? How could you possibly verify it wasn’t? After all God is the ruler of all affairs as he constantly reminds us throughout the Quran.

Allah created you from dust, then from a little fluid, then He made you pairs (the male and female). No female beareth or bringeth forth save with His knowledge. And no-one groweth old who groweth old, nor is aught lessened of his life, but it is recorded in a Book, Lo! that is easy for Allah. (35:11)

God is the Creator of all things, and He is guardian and watcher over everything. To Him belong the keys of the heavens and Earth. (39:62-3)

Glory be to Him in Whose hand is the kingdom and inner dimensions of all things. (36:83)

There is not a moving creature but He has grasp of it by the forelock. (11:56)

Those who disbelieve say: The Hour will never come unto us. Say: Nay, by my Lord, but it is coming unto you surely. (He is) the Knower of the Unseen. Not an atoms weight, or less than that or greater, escapes Him in the heavens or in the earth, but it is in a clear Record. That He may reward those who believe and do good words. For them is pardon and a rich provision. But those who strive against our revelations, challenging (Us), theirs will be a painful doom of wrath. (34:3-5)

"The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that some of the issues you raise (in public and in correspondence to me) are, I believe, illogical or incomplete in some respects."

Can I ask how you could possibly understand Godly wisdom through abrogation if you do not for one minute believe in an all-ruling Creator? (please read this question at least thrice before commenting).

I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about logic and why I feel I am logically profound than most Atheists. Such a discussion would be completely pointless between two people with differing beliefs; rather the focus should remain to be on weighing up the chances of there not being an intelligent being governing this wonderful universe. I will say to you though, for me to deny this magnificent force in nature which bore us out of nothingness (as we know it) really is the most illogical, and down right foolish thing I could ever do. As easy as you deny the existence of God (The Creator) I accept him with 100% certainty. Personally (and I will divulge only slightly) this is the result of what I experience with my (seemingly) unconscious mind (through dreams). These dreams relate to me aspects of my day ahead to the most incredible detail - making for enough proof of the spiritual world at least.

Thank you very much for your reply. As I’m sure you know only too well, it is very difficult for working professionals to put aside time for preparing these lengthy writings. This is why we took almost a week and a half to get back to you. We would now like to focus on preparing more articles on our website for the benefit of Dr Sina’s fans.

Regards,

ff.com

Ismahan's second reply...

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your response to my last email. The time and effort
expended in doing so by your colleagues and you are much appreciated.

As I stated at the outset of our exchange of communications, it is not
my desire to enter into a debate on your beliefs with your colleagues
or you. I felt I had a point to make in regard to some of the issues you
raised in the articles published at your website (for instance, in
regard to interfaith marriages as viewed by Islam, the authority of the
Islamic hierarchy in view of your statement that Islam does not have a
priesthood, etc.) and so initiated this correspondence. Further
correspondence raised a few more issues, which I have attempted to address from
the point of view of one who has been part of the Islamic fold and now
no longer empathizes with its philosophy. Permit me, then, to continue
in this vein and address your last email. As before, I will follow
accepted convention and paste your statements before responding to them.

“Abrogation is by no means “unique” to Islam. The concept of
abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a
newer law, is nothing new and it has practiced by God for eons – we are
told of this within the Quran…”

The concept of abrogation remains unique to Islam. I draw your
attention to the work of a reputed Islamic scholar, Arthur Jeffery, in his
book, ““Islam: Muhammad and His Religion”, published by Merril”.
“The Quran is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of
abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet
abrogate, i.e. declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The
importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the
Quranic “science” known as “Nasikh wa Mansukh”, i.e.: “the Abrogators and
the Abrogated”.

To claim that the Islamic God has exercised this concept “for eons”
begs the question, how long do you suppose an eon to be? If Islam accepts
creation as a fact, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and all
humankind evolved from them, it stands to reason one may as well accept
the Bishop of Usher’s statement that the world was created in 4004 BCE.
This does not provide much space for “eons”. Furthermore, to claim the
Islamic God abrogated previous commands and base it on Quranic verses
constitutes circular reasoning.

“ Are you serious? Osama Bin Ladin used the same verse (9:5) within his
fatwa to justify his new spree of attacks. This can be invalidated very
simply. You are obviously trying to give the impression that the
referred verse of the Quran is directing all individual Muslims from every
era to declare a war against all 'pagans' of the world (actually those
particular type of pagans are no longer in existence, therefore the verse
would be void by now in any case).”

You ask if I am serious in my claim that sura 9 abrogates 2:256. I
reply, yes, very. In doing so I merely echo the statements of recognized
Islamic scholars, from Bukhari onwards, who make the same claim. If that
is not easily acceptable I refer you to the work of Abu Bakr Mohammad
Ibn 'Abd Allah known as Ibn al-'Arabi, in his work Ahkam al-Quran, vol.
1, p232-234:
“No compulsion" is a condemnation of compelling people to do evil
generally, but compelling people in the truth is a religious duty. Does the
infidel get killed for any thing except on the basis of his religion?
The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until
they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. This
Hadith is taken from the words of Allah, 'Fight them on until there is
no more tumult and all religion becomes that of Allah (Q. 2:193).”

Let us examine Bukhari’s sahih (authenticated) hadith. In his
collection of Hadith, known as Sahih Bukhari, there is a chapter headed "'The
statement of Allah, 'But if they repent and offer the prayers perfectly
and give the obligatory charity then leave their way free'" (9:5) In
this chapter Bukhari recorded the following Hadith:
"Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: I have been ordered to fight
against the people until they testify that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah and that Mohammad is Allah's apostle, and offer the
prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform
all that, then they save their lives and property from me except from
Islamic laws, and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
(English translation, Vol.1 Hadith No.24)

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, the author of an-Nasikh wal-Mansuk, informs us
that there are 114 verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam, but all
were abrogated by one verse, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find
them" (Q. 9:5), before the death of Mohammad. (Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi,
An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, P.19)

I could provide further references from Islamic scholars, ancient and
modern, but that would merely belabor the point. The fact remains that
9:5 abrogates 2:256, 2:62, 5:69, and other verses. If doubt still
remains, I suggest you discuss this aspect of Islam with an Imam. However, I
am very interested to read your claim that a certain verse of the Quran
is “void”. It begs the question, if this is but one aspect of the Quran
which is “void”, how many others may we place in the same category?

“Furthermore, the 'pagans' against whom fighting is ordained by the
referred verses are not general in nature, but are actually only the
polytheists of Banu Ishmael – historical fact.”

You claim that the verse 9.5 refers to “only the polytheists of Banu
Ishmael”, who are, in your words, “no longer in existence, therefore the
verse would be void by now in any case.” This is a curious statement,
not least because firstly, it renders at least one verse of the Quran
void according to you and secondly, underlines the fallacy of your
argument that Islam is not irrelevant in today’s world. I repeat my claim,
Islam is the result of a specific time and place and has little, if any
relevance, to today’s world. The fact that Christianity and Judaism are
similar in nature doesn’t alleviate this fact or elevate the one above
the other philosophies. Furthermore, this argument is especially
specious given the general trend of Islam to belittle the authority and
validity of Christianity and Judaism.

“I cannot for one moment believe that as an Arab speaking person you
seem to think that 4:34 is teaching anything other than a basic fact of
life – That men are both emotionally and physically stronger than
women.”

You claim that it is a fact that men are emotionally and physically
stronger than women. Men are physically stronger than women, no doubt. But
may I ask the titles of the study or studies which lend to the claim
that women are emotionally weaker than men? Could this just possibly be
an indication of an Islamic upbringing or, at least, of an upbringing
close to an Islamic society? On the other hand, any decent (secular)
library will provide you with psychological studies which indicate quite
the opposite. A cursory search of the world-wide web will provide similar
results from secular sources which do not answer to any religion or are
predisposed towards one.

"I beg to differ. (The independence of women) is a very modern,
supposedly liberal ideology which only (yet) exists as a front. Even in the
secular society it does not hold true for the vast majority of females,
though the situation may change in a few more decades. Even so Islam
does not place any restrictions on these women."

It is very true that women in secular societies do not have all the
freedoms, liberties and advantages accorded to their male counterparts.
However, your argument again does not hold water. In secular societies,
women have the right and access to processes to ensure they may address
any perceived disadvantage and rectify it. Because of this right the
infamous glass ceiling is being steadily eroded. Secular societies evolve
and change on a continual basis, mostly for the better. This is in
direct opposition to closed systems such as Islam which, as you imply, is a
doctrine for all time. To put it more plainly and simultaneously
demonstrate the quandary it faces, Islam must acknowledge that women today
are not intellectually, morally and emotionally inferior to men, or
become even more irrelevant. However, if this is acknowledged to be true, it
must also acknowledge that the Quranic statements on the inferiority of
women (such as having two women witnesses as opposed to one male,
etc) are, to use your term, “void” and irrelevant. Either way, Islam
and other religions which do not provide equal rights to women and men
are doomed to becoming increasingly irrelevant.

“Western ignorance often pleads “In Islam the woman has no choice of
marriage partner” – not knowing that arranged marriages are actually an
ancient Hindu custom.”

It is true that Indians and other societies practice arranged
marriages. However, Hinduism does not indicate that a woman may not have a say
in her choice of partner. If a Hindu woman marries a non-Hindu she
merely loses her caste in accordance with the laws provided by Manu; she is
not automatically excommunicated. Moreover, unlike Islam, there is no
law in Hinduism which states that a Hindu woman may only marry a Hindu
man. I suggest we do not confuse Hindu law with custom.

This aside, I do not understand the relevance of your argument. Do you
claim that Islam merely copied ancient Hindu customs? Or is it possible
that Islam merely consolidated and reinforced Arabic practices in
regard to women? In either case the question is to be asked, did Islam
borrow from Hinduism or is Islam the product of a specific time and place?

"I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about logic and why I
feel I am logically profound than most Atheists. Such a discussion would
be completely pointless between two people with differing beliefs;
rather the focus should remain to be on weighing up the chances of there
not being an intelligent being governing this wonderful universe. I will
say to you though, for me to deny this magnificent force in nature
which bore us out of nothingness (as we know it) really is the most
illogical, and down right foolish thing I could ever do. As easy as you deny
the existence of God (The Creator) I accept him with 100% certainty.
Personally (and I will divulge only slightly) this is the result of what I
experience with my (seemingly) unconscious mind (through dreams). These
dreams relate to me aspects of my day ahead to the most incredible
detail - making for enough proof of the spiritual world at least."

I must agree with your statement that it is difficult for two people
with widely differing views to reach consensus on most subjects. This is
where discussion, debate and reasoning come into their own. I do
acknowledge your implication that religion is a subjective experience and,
thus, becomes a personal reality. I’m sure you will acknowledge and
agree, however, that personal realities remain just that at all times. They
cannot be stated with the same authority as, say, Newton’s second law.
You may rightfully believe that you are “logically profound than most
atheists.” But this again is a subjective assessment of ability.

I acknowledge and accept your desire not to reveal your identity. To
this extent it is impossible, save by examining the reasoning evinced in
your arguments, to state what authority you bring to the subject. On
the other hand, there are respected scientists who make their identities
and views known. By and large, they deny creationism and reject it. To
give just two examples, please refer to www.geocities.com/athens/cyprus/8732 which is the web page of Turkish scientists who speak out against
creationism and http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism, which
provides the view of the National Academy of Sciences, a respected
body, in regard to the subject.

Your statement that science is God in action is, in my view and
professional opinion, wishful thinking. It presupposes the existence of a
deity and bases that presupposition on a purely subjective experience. Such
an experience is usually reinforced in the psyche by one’s upbringing
and environment. Such subjectivity will gain credibility only when it
can be measured and quantified. Until then, it remains nebulous and any
argument based upon it is, at best, tenuous.

It appears to me that your reasoning, as evinced in the articles
published at your website and your communications to me, contains flaws
similar to those demonstrated in the reasoning of other apologists. It also
appears to me, and by your own admission, that your arguments for Islam
and its tenets is based largely on subjective emotion, and together
with other apologists, semantics and sophistry. The fact remains that
Islam contradicts itself in several areas. Whether this is termed
abrogation or otherwise, whether divine license is offered by way of reason or
otherwise, when examined logically and without preconception, it
demonstrates no special claim to authority or superiority to other
philosophies; quite the reverse, in fact.

I understand your desire to focus on articles for your website for the
benefit of Dr Sina’s “fans”. This draws my deeper appreciation for your
time and effort in responding to my communications. I thank you again
for those and understand this will terminate our correspondence.

Regards,

Ismahan Levi

Our final reply (Ismahan may rebut)...

Dear Ismahan,

Although you stated at the very beginning of our correspondence that it was not your intention to enter into a debate concerning our religious beliefs, in order for me to explain the erroneous claims you have made I must resort to the old sources (the OT and NT) and extract for you the proofs which led to my original statement (that abrogation has been practiced by God for "eons"). It is not my intention to bore you but the purpose of this exercise is to show you that the claims you make and testimonies you give are such that are based upon total ignorance of the religions in question, they also (to an extent) carry all the hallmarks of interpretations Christian missionaries regularly give regarding Quranic abrogation (particularly on the Internet). First of all it must be clarified that Arthur Jeffery is an Orientalist of Islam who either subscribes to the Christian faith (or once did). Muslim academics do not regard him to the extent you may think. If it so happens that he stated: "The Quran is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation..." then this remains a matter of opinion. What we will attempt to show is that it is totally incorrect.

According to Matthew, Jesus said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

And surprising, Jesus, the omniscient Yahweh incarnate (allegedly!) suddenly had to change the Laws of Divorce, Justice and Oaths apart from changing his own mind!

Abrogation Of Divorce

The best examples of Jesus abrogating parts of Old Testament law concern a number of statements recorded in the gospel according to Matthew. The most prominent of them would be the Law concerning Divorce.

In the Old Testament we find the following law concerning divorce:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)

Now without going into the minute of this particular law of divorce, one thing becomes immediately clear. Not only is divorce permitted by God, it is legal for her to remarry.

However in the time of Jesus, the rules of divorce seem to have taken a U-turn.

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

Here Jesus abrogated the former permission to divorce according to the husband's displeasure and strictly allowed it under one condition - adultery. He even went so far as to legislate that divorcees were not permitted to remarry, clearly abrogating the former permission. But what is the reason given for this abrogation? Had God changed His mind? Is this evidence of God not being omniscient? Or more importantly, is this evidence that in fact God was never the author of these laws? Well Jesus himself explains:

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:7-9)

Jesus points to the fact that God designs laws that are suitable to the needs and exigencies of the time and audience.

Law Of Absolute Justice

In the Hebrew Scriptures it is written:

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21)

Quite a harsh law of absolute justice that was necessary due to the conditions of Moses' age. But Jesus was inspired by God to reveal a softer code for the believers to practice in individual relationships. By abrogating the harshness of absolute justice, Jesus was inspired to encourage the believers to employ forgiveness and mercy. It is recorded he said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

It is a different story that many Christians do not practice what Jesus has told them to do.

Law Of Oaths

We read:

If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth. (Deuteronomy 23:21-23)

That is, it is permissible to make an oath for various reasons, however, the swearer must fulfil the oath he makes. In Jesus' time it became necessary for him to abrogate this permission so that the swearing of oaths became forbidden. In Matthew it is recorded:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37)

Jesus Abrogating His Own Commandments

Perhaps the clearest example of God inspiring Jesus to practice abrogation can be seen in the commissioning of his disciples. It is written in the New Testament that initially Jesus forbade his disciples from preaching to non-Jews. He restricted their activities and commanded them to avoid Gentiles. However, due to the change in circumstances and the completion of his earthly mission, Jesus abrogated this earlier law and made it not only permissible but obligatory for his disciples to reach out to a broader base.

A nice example of Jesus asking his disciples to preach the lost sheep of Israel is:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

This prohibition is reinforced by Jesus' own practice:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:22-24)

Even though because of his mercy Jesus healed the sick daughter, he made it clear that his mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Later on this was abrogated and Jesus commanded his disciples to reach out to all peoples. It is recorded he said:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

"To claim that the Islamic God has exercised this concept “for eons” begs the question, how long do you suppose an eon to be?" If Islam accepts creation as a fact, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and all humankind evolved from them, it stands to reason one may as well accept the Bishop of Usher’s statement that the world was created in 4004 BCE. This does not provide much space for “eons”."

Eon: (taken from Webster online)

1 : an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time : Age
2 a usually eon : a very large division of geologic time usually longer than an era b : a unit of geologic time equal to one billion years.

I didn't expect you to give the above phrase the literal treatment so please accept that I used the word in a very loose manner. I should've stuck to 'thousands of years' but the fact remains that the first revelation was sent a very very long time after Adam and Eve. Therefore, the "eons" I speak of obviously begin from revelation number 1, i.e. the Torah. Islam, as you know, does not place a figure on the age of creation and one may not as well accept the Bishop of Usher's views that the Earth was created in 4004 BCE, which of course is ridiculous since it merely uses cumulative addition (by summing up the ages of all the Biblical figures!). To put it correctly everything that has evolved was created (even if evolution was the process of creating), the time difference between the two ends of our evolutional process obviously remains a matter of dispute.

Furthermore, to claim the Islamic God abrogated previous commands and base it on Quranic verses constitutes circular reasoning."

This is the comment I made earlier on: "We are told of this (concept of abrogation) within the Quran (i.e. how God relaxed or introduced certain prohibitions for mankind with each new messenger for their own benefit) and we can see evidences of it throughout the OT and NT."

I'm afraid this in no way constitutes circular reasoning. Muslims believe that the Quran is the last in a series of revelations from the One True God, one of a trilogy but the last. It therefore stands to reason that the author of the Quran (who is also the author of the Gospel and the Torah, according to Muslim belief) can abrogate previous commandments via his last revelation. Your conclusion that this is circular reasoning comes from the view you possess that the Quran is not by the same author and that all 3 revelations are in fact by 3 different people or groups of people. One cannot impose these conditions upon external thought and then deduce it to be "circular reasoning".

Here is something which strengthens our (the Muslims claim). In Surah Al-Maida we read...

This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them...(5:5)

This is clear proof that the author of the Quran is someone (or something) which feels He (it) has the authority to relax a prohibition for Jews and Christians. Even if you claim this is obviously Mohammed assuming authority over Jews and Christians, we believe it is God and so it stands to reason that from out point of view God can abrogate a command at anytime any place.

"In this chapter Bukhari recorded the following Hadith: "No compulsion" is a condemnation of compelling people to do evil generally, but compelling people in the truth is a religious duty. Does the infidel get killed for any thing except on the basis of his religion? The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. This Hadith is taken from the words of Allah, 'Fight them on until there is no more tumult and all religion becomes that of Allah (Q. 2:193)."

Thank you so diligently for quoting from the works by Mr P. Newton, a very well known Islamic polemic: For the benefit of our non-Muslim readers, for someone to say "Bukhari recorded" the above Hadith from chapter 2 can be extremely misleading, since it may imply that Bukhari was present taking notes (verbatim) whilst the Prophet was supposedly uttering those words. No, the correct way to put it should be "Bukhari claims to have traced the following saying to the Prophet, 250 years after it was said, which he also claims can be proved was said in light of Surah 2, verse 193, again 250 years after it supposedly happened, though the proof is non-existent". Hadith are open to manifest errors, subjection, corruption and interference. As someone who denies even God why do you then believe for one moment that the science of hadith (tracing a chain of sayings to a particular person over a period of 250 years) is so flawless? Note: I am not implying the above hadith is a manufactured one (it is actually one of the most authentic) but am merely pointing to the possibility that some can be based on bad judgement on the contrary I welcome most hadith as they give a brilliant insight into the Prophet's life.

People are so selective of the English translations they put forward. If we translate Allah for God and then look at the following translations, verse 2:193 implies nothing more than "fight the Pagans for your freedom to worship God". Since it merely informs the people that only God should be worshipped, not men, not animals, not trees, not the planets and not idols. Of course using the word Allah (in the height of Western ignorance) and saying that "all religion should be for the supposed 'Islamic God' only" will imply a great deal of intolerance and isolation.

Pickthall Yusuf Ali Shakir Sher Ali Rashad Khalifa Hilali and Khan

al-Baqarah 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed only for God. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the wrongdoers. You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship God freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with God) and (all and every kind of) worship is for God (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

Arabic transliteration:

192. Fa-ini intahaw fa-inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun 193.Waqatiloohum hatta la takoona fitnatun wayakoona alddeenu lillahi fa-ini intahaw fala AAudwana illa AAala alththalimeena. 194. Alshshahru alharamu bialshshahri alharami waalhurumatu qisasun famani iAAtada AAalaykum faiAAtadoo AAalayhi bimithli ma iAAtada AAalaykum waittaqoo Allaha waiAAlamoo anna Allaha maAAa almuttaqeena

Firstly if it can be proven that this is exactly what Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, the author of an-Nasikh wal-Mansuk implied then I do not fully agree with nor do I subscribe to the opinion of 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam and Dr. Sobhy. Mr Newton obviously, with an agenda at hand, will only quote from "scholars" who he feels have implied that Surah 9:5 is a command for all Muslims to come for all of eternity. I'm sure if we had the time and resources at our dispense we could find hundreds of contrasting opinions by the various scholars throughout the millions of writings that exist out there in the middle east. Therefore the evidence put forward is extremely blinkered and may even be circumstantial. For your information none of my local Imams agrees with those views (and some even assert that's not what they implied) as do not worldly recognised scholars like Shabir Alley, Hamza Yusuf, Jamal Al-Badawi and Ahmed Deedhat.

Before answering you, I would like to clarify (and maybe I should've done this earlier) that there can be a number of reasons for the abrogation of any of the directives of the Quran. These reasons may range from the preparation and training of the addressees of the Quran for the final and permanent directives that were ultimately intended to the variation of any of the directives, which were given due to a specific temporary situation. The latter assumes a form of wisdom only the Almighty could justify.

Furthermore, in the Muslims understanding the issue of abrogation in the Quran should be seen in the light of the following principles:

The doctrine of abrogation is not applicable to any of the verses relating to beliefs and/or morality (Al-Hikmah); On the contrary, the concept of abrogation relates only to practical laws (Shariah) whether relating to the society or to the individual;

No verse of the Quran can be said to have abrogated, except by an express verse of the Quran itself. Nothing outside the Quran can abrogate any verse of the Quran;

In all the cases of abrogation in the Quran, both the abrogated and the abrogating verses were preserved permanently;

In most of the cases of abrogation, the abrogating verse is placed immediately after the abrogated verse, which not only clarifies the status of both the verses with reference to abrogation, but also (in most of the cases) clarifying the reason for such abrogation.

Keeping this general clarification regarding the overall concept of abrogation in perspective, let us now turn to your specific question:

"I am very interested to read your claim that a certain verse of the Quran is “void”. It begs the question, if this is but one aspect of the Quran which is “void”, how many others may we place in the same category?"

This is nothing new to refute, it's a well established fact that there are void verses in the Quran, why do you sound so surprised? By keeping the abrogated verses preserved in the Quran, we are informed of the fact that God implemented His Shariah (not punishment) in its final shape with extreme wisdom and mercy. Whenever a directive required the preparation and training of the individual or the society, the merciful King made the necessary provisions for such preparation and training. This, in turn, provides us with the invaluable information that whenever we initiate a plan to implement the directives of the Shariah at a collective level, we should also take into consideration the prevalent situation of the society as well as the preparedness of the individuals and the collectively to adhere to the directives of the Shariah. In all such cases where we feel that the ground needs to be prepared before the final implementation of the ultimate directives of the Shariah, we should first try to prepare the grounds for the revered purpose and only after the ground has been adequately prepared should we try to practically implement the directives of the Shariah in their final shape.

"The fact remains that 9:5 abrogates 2:256, 2:62, 5:69, and other verses."

We will continue to maintain that even though the verse entails a directive of fighting against the Pagans, this directive is not universal in its nature and is restricted to the direct addressees of the messenger of God. So to put it correctly yes the Pagan Arabs (tribes of Banu Ishmael) were compelled to accept Islam at some point. A contradiction to 2:256? You could say so in part, but not in it's entirety.

Most of the instances at which the Quran has prescribed fighting to the Muslims, the directive is not given as a part of the Shariah, but as a part of God's punishment of the rejecters of the Truth, even after the Truth has become absolutely manifest from falsehood. Keeping this basic clarification in perspective, if we look at the cited verse, we shall see that the verse is not general in its nature. The directives in the category are particular in their nature and cannot be generalized for the whole of the human race. A close look at the context, the style and the words of these verses and also the reasons given for the prescribed action against the polytheists clearly evidences the fact that the directive entailed in these verses is restricted in its application to the companions of the Prophet and the action that they are directed to take is restricted against those toward whom the Prophet was sent, they address - not the Muslims for all times to come - but only the companions of the Prophet. Again the rejecters against whom action is prescribed in these verses are only those, who were either the direct addressees of the Prophet or the companions of the Prophet. These directives do not entail a directive against any non-Muslims of the present day. For Jews and Christians to suggest otherwise is clearly hypocritical since similar justifications are used to defend the following verses:

Deuteronomy 20:10-16

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save nothing that breathes...

Isaiah 60:16

You shall suck the milk of nations, you shall suck the breast of kings; and you shall know that I, the LORD, am your Saviour and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

According to Jews and Christians what did God intend when he delivered the above two messages? That all Jews and Christians, of all nations, of all times to come should proceed to "milk" nations out of their resources? (for the sake of argument lets say the actions of 19/20th century Europe didn't take place) No, of course not, any sane Person of the book would defend the above by saying the directive was addressed to a particular group of people (for whatever reason). Then why the horrendous double standards when Muslims make the same assertion with certain verses of their Holy book?

If we look into religious history Noah was intended for his own people who had become extremely wicked and had plagued the land with their sorry ways. He warned them but in the end the floods engulfed them. The floods did not continue to engulf the wrong-doers after Noah had gone because Noah's work had been done and he would be a witness that he delivered the message. Similarly when Lot commanded his people to abstain from sodomy and they refused the city was pelted with some form of debris, but the debris did not fall on all sodomizers who came after Lot, since Lot's work had been done and he would be a witness that he delivered the message. Similarly Mohammed came to cleanse Arabia of some pretty barbaric practices, in order to reclaim the faith of Abraham. In order to achieve this goal God punished the Pagans with Mohammed and his followers hands and do recall that (although you don't believe it) the Quran says it was Angels who supported the against all odds struggle with the Pagans. Thus Mohammed's work was done and he was successful in ridding Arabia of Pagan beliefs and customs, if they turned back he would be a witness against them. Muslims justify the fact that Mohammed was a messenger for the whole of mankind, with his religion being for the whole of mankind, simply because he is the seal of the messengers, after which there are to be no more - he is the final warner. Therefore to accept the Quran and to try to follow it's guidelines to life as best as possible (belief in one God, his signs and to be righteous) is logically the best way of attaining salvation for all future generations to come. The claim that the supposed guilty ones (disbelievers and mischief makers) are to be deferred to Muslims for punishment is not only incorrect but is also greatly contradictory to Islamic belief, since it implies that the function of final judgment by the Almighty serves no real purpose.

Furthermore Prophet Mohammed prophesised the modern times by saying there would be a time where religion will be overlooked; Muslims will be divided; they will decrease in numbers; their religion full of un-Islamic practices; their leaders will be corrupt; world wide fornication will be manifest, world wide alcohol consumption will be manifest, charity will decrease, selfishness will increase. Surely if Islam was meant to be imposed on people by force Mohammed would not have doubted his ummah in such a fashion!

Let me finish this final correspondence by telling you that Muslims do like to reason, even more so than Christians who blissfully accept that this magnificent force in nature begets children. Very few can offer pure untainted facts. When a Muslim and Christian dialogue begins one finds the Muslims takes up a lot of time combating simple ignorance such as making people realise that Allah, is the generic Arabic word for God, as used by Arab Christians. With Atheists, it seems when a particular argument, even though the brains behind it is a Christian, is at hand which corresponds to their views they without hesitation adopt it but at all other times Christians as well as Muslims are mentally defect. Is this the way to comprehend truth? I read the article concerning logic at infidels.org and will testify I mostly agree with the guidelines given, what I find amusing though, is that many atheists often go back on their own guidelines in order to propagate their views.

I will end this correspondence here since time is short (although you are entitled to offer a rebuttal). The other responses you have given regarding cultural interpretations of Islam and science and God are currently being dealt with by us (in the form of separate articles). Maybe you can read them some time and then offer your views. In the meantime let me take this opportunity to thank your for an, in the end, worthwhile debate.

Regards,

faithfreedom.com