Islamist Terrorism: The Underlying Politics

Ram Puniyani

The World at large has suffered massive inhuman acts of violence, terrorism in the name of Islam. There are many glaring insane, cruel acts which cannot be forgotten and condoned in any way. Be it the killing of nearly three thousand innocent people in the attack of 9/11 (which was upheld by Osama bin Laden), the attack on Peshawar school children, the abduction of schoolgirls by Boko Haram, attack on Charlie Hebdo, the violence by ISIS, all are equally condemnable and global society has to put its head together to stop this insanity. 

Since 9/11 again, a new phrase has been coined, ‘Islamic terrorism’, associating Islam with terror. It is true that this Islamist terror has been very persistent and is a cancerous phenomenon. An impression has been created due to these incidents that this violence has something to do with Islam. The same has been strongly propagated by the US media to begin with and later other media also picked it up. Simply speaking if these acts have anything to do with Islam, why they are occurring more in the oil rich countries? 

Adding to this misconception various writers have come with the thesis that reform in Islam will cure the problem. Some say that there is a need for ‘religious revolution’ to purge Islam of extremist tendencies. It’s pointed out that Islamic fundamentalists, those indulging in terror have come to dominate and so reform in Islam will ensure the end to violence. The question is who gives power to fundamentalists to shoot down the peaceful interpretations of Islam, is it Islam or some politics behind the mask of Islam. One concedes that what is going on is one of the most horrendous phenomena in the history of human kind and it must be condemned and uprooted. 

While Islamist terrorists are holding the humanity to ransom, we need to go beyond the obvious to understand this phenomenon, how it has come up and who is behind it. We need to ponder whether theoretical reform can hold forte in the face of ‘politics of oil’ supported and secretly operated by vested interests to achieve their goals by any means. As such the political context, which gives birth to these violent tendencies in the name of Islam, needs to be unraveled. 

There have been brilliant, humane interpretations of Islam by the likes of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer; precisely around the time when the terrorists have been morphing from one area to another, executing one or the other horrendous acts of terror. Why these interpretations of Islam are not in the mainstream? Fundamentalists with their version of Islam have held the sway with inhuman acts and violent versions of Islam is stalking the streets. At the same time the voice of liberal-humane versions of Islam is in the margins. The books elaborating different meanings of the Quran, the movements for rationality are very much there but these are not the one’s which are acknowledged by the terror factories created by the politics, which aims to gobble up the ‘oil wealth’ to quench ‘oil hunger’. What is argued by some is already there in the Islamic domain, the humane version of Islam; question is that this rationalist-reform version has been having insignificant impact due to extraneous economic-political factors. 

The dominant political forces pick up and discard interpretations of religion to suit their political-economic agenda. The verses of Koran have to be seen in the particular context, as putting the text out of context is what the critics do. We refuse to see the political motives which are lying not so hidden under the mask of Islam. Thus while some Muslims may be living in denial mode for sure; the problem is not within religion. Problem is use of religion for the sake of power and wealth. The core point is to understand ‘the genesis and enfoldment’ of fundamentalism-terrorism in the name of Islam. Today how come ‘killing the kafirs’ is the buzzword while Islam’s ‘All men are brothers’ and ‘Islam means Peace’ lies in the by lanes of Islamic domain. 

Today’s terror acts have their genesis not too far ago in the politics of control over oil wealth of West (Central) Asia. While US supported-encouraged the creation of Al Qaeda, the Wahabi version of Islam came in handy for the Madrassas set up in Pakistan to create the ‘Jihadis’, to ally with armies taking on the Russians occupying Afghanistan. US equipped the Al Qaeda with 8000 million Dollars and 7000 tons of armaments, which also included the latest Stinger missiles. It was the progenitors of Al Qaeda who were presented by US President Ronald Reagan as the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers, in a press meet in White House. The overthrow of the democratically elected Government of Mossadegh (Iran 1953) led to the chain of events which paved the way for the violent interpretations of Islam being brought to the forefront and the liberal human versions being undermined. In the area; where Maulana Rumi put forward; ‘Peace and Love’ as the central doctrines of Islam (Sufi version), how come the Wahabi version is ruling the roost? The Salafi versions of Islam was put forward nearly two centuries ago; how come it was picked up as the Islam in these Madrassas just few decades ago? The version of Islam used by those involved in the business of killing and mindless violence was deliberately brought in for political goals to be sure. 

If we have a slight peep into history we can see that religion has been used as a mask for goals of power throughout history. Kings doing Crusade, Jihad or Dharmayudh abound. During colonial period it was the declining sections of Landlords-Kings (Hindu and Muslims) in India which came together to form United India Patriotic Association (1888), the parent organization from which Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha emerged in due course. These communal formations resorted to hate propaganda which led to intensification of communal violence. The Nawab of Dhaka and Raja of Kashi were the founders of these organizations. So do we attribute ‘religion-Hinduism and Islam’ as causative factor for the formation of these communal organizations or should we attribute it to the political context where the feudal lord-kings were declining and resorted to versions of Islam and Hinduism to safeguard their political interests? Currently in South Asia, we can see similar use of Buddhism in Myanmar and Srilanka where violent groups are formed in the name of Buddhism. 

In current times if we see a bit closely; the Islamist terrorists came up primarily in the oil zone and not in the most populous areas of Muslims say Indonesia for example. The cancerous seeds of terrorism were planted with the motivation of the economic goals of the superpower thirsting for oil, and not by any religious preacher. In present case Maulana Wahabb’s interpretation which was already there dormant in the deserts of Saudi Arabia was refurbished and ‘used’ to create the present dread. The primacy of political context can be missed only at our own peril. It is the political powers and vested interests who choose which version of religion to pick, which will suit their goals the best. We should see that there are those opening girls’ schools citing the importance of knowledge in Koran, and there are those gunning for the girls going to schools in the name of Islam again. The terrorist groups don’t debate on the versions of their religions, the few phrases put in to their heads during the process of indoctrination is what converts a sensitive human being into the gun or bomb wielding beast. 

The likes of Anders Behring Breivik, who shot 86 youth in Norway, are also not inspired by the teachings of Christ. Similarly belonging to same religion, a Gandhi will go out and make non violence as the central creed of his teachings while another Hindu Godse will pump in three bullets into his chest, in the name of the same religion. Where is religion involved in the process? The present set of Islamist terrorist is the outcome of the indoctrination done in the madrassas supported by the superpower, United States. The initial implants have gone on to spread in the whole area, where the innocent human lives are being sacrificed at the altar of political goals of maintaining hegemony in West Asia. There have been reports which show the role of US behind the ISIS militants also. The offshoots of this type of political outfits do spread here and there, but the center of gravity of the terror factory remains in the West Asia and motive being oil wealth. During colonial period the politics came in the label of religions; different religions. In these areas the colonial powers chose to let the feudal powers persist even when industries were coming up. Now since the major inhabitants of the oil rich zones are Muslims, Islam has been used for the political goals and paradoxically Muslims have become the victim of their own wealth, the black gold!

Read More

Paris, Peshawar and Boko Haram - Religion, Politics and Violence

Ram Puniyani

Massacre of hundreds of children in Peshawar by Pakistani Taliban, the atrocities, murders, kidnappings by Boko Haram, an Islamist group and the attack on Paris cartoon magazine Charlie Hadbo killing 16, have occurred in a short span of few months. The popular perception of relationship between violence and Islam got a further boost. The phrase ‘Islamic Terrorism’, which was created by US media in the aftermath of 9/11, got a further shot in the arms. It got a booster dose of unprecedented level. The debates regarding freedom of expression, sharia laws, education for girls continued to be in the fore and columns after column either dissociating Islam from these mindless acts or boosting the perception of Muslims being in the business of merciless killing of their own kith and other with gay abandon; dominated the visual and print media (January 2015).

Logo of Boko Haram (Courtesy: Wikipedia)

These acts of terror kill the innocent people and Koran- chapter V verse 32- goes on to say that even if you kill a single innocent person, that’s like killing the whole humanity with an addition that if you save a single innocent person that’s like saving the whole humanity. Still the impression continues that currently most of the dreaded acts of terror are either done by Muslims belonging to this or that group or faction. Not too long ago we did witness acts of terror from the like of Andres Behring Brevik(Norway); the people like Ashin Wirathu (Buddhist Myanmar) were in the news for related actions. Swami Aseemanand is in jail and had confessed to the acts of terrorist violence not too long ago. Does one want to underplay the association of Islam-Muslims and acts of terror? Is one wanting to be in denial mode as for as violence by some Muslims is concerned? The teachings of Koran notwithstanding; there are some Muslims who take to the senseless killings in the most insane and cruel manner; is definitely true. The question is; are such acts due to Islam or Muslims as such? How does one understand the association of label of religion with acts of violence and terror?

At the cost of broad generalizations one can say that most of the prophets of religions focused on some issue of injustice in the society and called for peace, non-violence in their own historical context. The society was either based on pastoral or agricultural mode of production and tribal society-kingdoms were the main pattern of organization of society. The religions, which began as the moral edicts had added social and communitarian functions as well. Clergy became a major component of religions. The spread of the message of prophets also led to the institutionalization of religions, which added one more dimension to the broad umbrella provided by religion as a social phenomenon. These institutions built around religions became a very significant part of religions. Those controlling levers of power gradually allied with the religions’ institutions; and these institutions came to be patronized by the rulers. In turn the institutionalized religions legitimized the power of the king, landlord. King was presented as the son of God in different ways.

The alliance of King-Clergy was best seen in the alliance King-Pope. In other religions’ contexts it became Nawab-Shahi Imam, Raja-Rajguru for example. Currently in Pakistan and Myanmar; mostly; the institutions of religions and dominating army are hands in gloves times and over again. In our Maharashtra a popular Marathi phrase sums it very well Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Priest). With religions being institutionalized the collaboration between kings and clergy became the foundation of social system where the agricultural producers-craftsmen and other laboring masses submitted to the system created by the power of the king and ideology of the clergy. The words of Prophets went in to the background. The organization of clergy was varying, from the most organized in Christianity to the decentralized one in Hinduism, to Islam where there is no theological justification of clergy; nevertheless it is very much there.

Here comes the entry of power in the realm of religion. Kingdoms, many a times took the cover of religion for their goals of power. The kings expanded or wanted to expand their kingdoms and put this expansion project to annex other territories in the garb of Crusade, Jihad or Dharmyudh depending on the religion of the king.

The real use of religion’s identity, label, can be seen during colonial period. In most South Asian countries, particularly in India, we see that with the social, economic changes accompanying the introduction of transport, communication, industries and modern education during colonial period, there was a rise of new classes in the form of businessmen industrialists, workers and educated classes in particular. They formed secular organizations, with secular democratic Indian nationalism as the goal, like Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (Bhagat Singh), Independent Labor Party, Scheduled Castes Federation (B.R.Ambedkar) and the overarching Indian Nationalist Congress (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Mahatma Gandhi). In contrast to these rising classes the declining classes of Landlords and Kings pledged their loyalty to British and went on to form Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha and later RSS with the agenda of Hindu nation. In the Religious nationalist organizations initially only kings-landlords were there later some educated and upper caste elite and still later sections of middle class also joined in. Here the communitarian identity of religion was exploited by declining classes to protect their social-political interests. When they said ‘my religion in danger’ they meant my political interests are in danger. They also indulged in ‘Hate other’ propaganda, leading to communal violence and later to the partition of the country.  Here we see religion being used as a cover, the religious nationalism to hide their feudal values of caste and gender hierarchy. Similarly the cover of Buddhism has been used by political tendencies in Srilanka and Myanmar.      

With the coming in of Imperialism, the rise of the US as the global super power dominated the global scene. Two superpowers USSR and USA were in the game of ‘Cold War’. US later planned and used Islam to counter Socialist block. It meticulously used a version of Islam for indoctrination the minds of youth. These youth were used to fight against the Soviet Russia and later the same indoctrinated youth came up and are tormenting the parts of the World. This phase of ‘religion as a cover of political goals’ begins with the formation of Israel in the aftermath of Second World War, the eviction of 14 lakh Palestinians away from their home and hearth. In due course to protect its oil interests the US-Britain nexus overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh Government in Iran. This ‘chain of events’ did lead to coming to power of Ayatollah Khomeini. At this point US media coined the word ‘Islam the new threat’. They meant that Socialism as the threat is in decline and Islam is coming up as the new threat to the free World. In its design to use all methods to crush the socialist block, US encouraged the Madarassas in Pakistan, where the Wahabbi version of Islam was introduced as a part of the training module designed in Washington. This version of Islam had already been the ally of the Saud family, in whose name Saudi Arabia stands. The Saud family came to use this version of Islam, Wahabbism to control the oil wealth of the region. US allied with Saud dynasty and also promoted Wahabbi version in the Madrassas in Pakistan. This version of Islam saw in every person disagreeing with their interpretation of Islam, as Kafir and killing the kafirs as Jihad. Jihad being the path to Jannat after death, jannat waiting with the rich reward of 72 virgins!

This heady mix of ‘brain washing’ did lead to Mujahedeen being transformed to Taliban-Al Qaeda and later giving rise to ISIS, the major menace in today’s world. Tendencies like Boko Haram draw their inspiration and support from the similar understanding of Islam. Time and again a large section of leaders of Muslims, many of the maulanas have issued the fatwa’s that terrorism is against the tenets of Islam, but what sticks in social awareness is the picture of Taliban or ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko haram as the face of Muslims and Islam. No wonder one of the greatest philosophers of all the times Karl Marx, remarked very aptly that’ Ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class’, that’s the power of media at the service of the US, at the service of Corporate houses. Today the Islamophobia rules the streets and in some form or the other the religion which came to give the message of peace is perceived as the ultimate in prompting and indulging in violence.

Do we need to factor in the political forces, Kings of the past, the colonial masters of yesteryears and the ‘oil hungry’ global superpowers, behind promoting, abusing religions’ identity to understand the dastardly acts tormenting the humanity? The phrases joining any religion and terrorism are the biggest insult to the morality of religions to be sure!

Read More

ISIS, Oil Politics and Peaking of Islamophobia

Ram Puniyani

  

Just a month ago (August 2014) a group of Muslim activists-scholars organized press meets in various cities. They issued a statement condemning the brutal violence being committed by ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). There statement carried a visual saying Islam Means Peace. The statement said “Indian Muslims Condemn the Brutal Atrocities by ISIS against Minorities in Iraq and Syria; denounce religious intolerance, persecution and violence in the name of Islam” I circulated the statement to many lists. One of the members on the list wrote back that “‘Islam means Peace’ is the biggest joke of the century”. Simultaneously in India, the propaganda about love Jihad is being spread like wild fire by communal elements. Irrespective of the fact that in such a propaganda few cases of marriage-conversion, the girls changing their version the boundary line between love and imposition being regularly breached, have been picked up as an example of Muslim men on a path to Jihad for conversion to Islam, by marrying Hindu girls by deceit. A friend demanded whether I can cite even 100 cases where Muslim girls have married Hindu men. To my good fortune I could locate a list longer than that of 100 and also a Google search of Hindu Men Muslim wife gave good many beautiful stories (https://www.facebook.com/R3alityofPorkistan/posts/613266692020533 ) of such ‘love jihad’ in reverse! To add to the already existing atmosphere Al Jawahiri of Al Qaeda issued a Video declaring its plan to expand the activities in India.

The ‘social common sense’ is so heavily weighted against Islam and Muslims that to talk of reason in understanding religion and its abuse for political goals seems to be a very difficult exercise. The current ghastly acts are being described to be due to Islam and in turn Muslim community is blamed for the violence. The understanding that religions are for ‘morality and peace’ is accepted for other religions but not for Islam in popular perception. Many a processes of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ are today fusing to create a picture of Muslims which is neither true nor of any good to the peace in the World. All Muslims are being presented in homogenous-uniform image and the selective examples of the criminal Muslims and intolerant version of Islam is being projected as ‘the Islam’ feeding into the massive prejudices which have intensified during last several decades.

Flag of ISIS

While the ISIS is an offshoot of AL Qaeda, which was trained by USA-ISI through Madrasa’s set up in Pakistan. There are enough good resources to tell us about the scheme of US in the West Asia to control the oil wealth. The US dictum for this area has been ‘Oil is too precious a commodity to be left to control of natives’. While one has burnt midnight oil to unravel the trajectory of US policy through books with solid scholarship, the job of understanding this has become easy with a small video clip of Hillary Clinton. Very smartly and briskly she tells us that it was US which created Al Qaeda by indoctrinating the Muslim youth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhRKj6633w). A peep into the history of the region tells us that this indoctrination was done by using the distorted version of Islam, Wahabbism to be more precise.

This force, Al Qaeda was created, richly funded and armed to the teeth by US, to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. With the brutality of Al Qaeda being manifest, US media presented its demonic image by coining the word ‘Islamic terrorism’ after 9/11 2001. Before this 9/11 episode, the acts of terror were not linked to religion, though people coming from different religions have resorted to such acts. From killer of Mahatama Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, to Buddhist monks resorting to terror acts in Thailand, Mynmar, Sri Lanka to Anders Berling Brevik of Norway, people coming from different religious stocks have indulged in acts of terror for diverse political reasons. After 9/11 the acts of terror was associated exclusively with Islam. 

  

Interestingly the version of Islam picked up by US to create Al Qaeda, to indoctrinate Mujahideen in to terror trails, was formulated by Abd al-Wahhab, who had started rigidifying Islam; imposing his exclusive version in the projection of Islam. He pontificates that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this (Wahab’s) particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life." This was the version of Islam which was one amongst many. Why did it become more dominant?  Mostly because this version got the sanction form the political masters as this version got patronage of the rulers of Saudi Arabia. “One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine is takfir. As per this doctrine fellow Muslims are called infidels if they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King)." Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html )

This version suited the Saudi rulers in keeping their control over oil resources and the same version suited the US designs, where the meaning of Kafir (One who hides the truth) is changed to the non Muslim, the ‘other’. This is the version where the word Jihad is made synonymous with killing the non believer. As such scholars of repute tell us that Jihad stands for striving to your utmost for good deeds. The same Islam, which says ‘to me my din (faith) to you yours’ is changed over to killing those who disagree with you. The same Islam which tells us that ‘killing of even a single innocent human being tantamount to killing the whole humanity’ (Koran, chapter 5 verse 32) was manipulated to kill innocent human beings. This interpretation of Islam was the perfect recipe for those who wanted to fight Russian army through proxy! The indoctrination of this variety cannot be undone once the goals are achieved. The Al Qaeda elements after collaborating in defeating Russian army; retain the distorted version of Islam and the dangerous weapons supplied by US. What do they do now with Wahabi Islam in head and armaments received courtesy the United States, in hands? So ISIS comes up in due course, and the illusion that they can now rule the World, they will install Khalifa, and all the insanity follows!

As such US has been out to play ‘divide and rule’ like the earlier colonial powers. In India colonial powers sowed the seeds of communal politics. In West Asia, during last few decades after the demise of Soviet Union; US imperialism is aiming to create smaller states along ethnic-sectarian divides and feeding into the divides and clashes along Shia-Sunni-Kurd lines. ‘Divide-et-empera’ (divide and rule) is at its peak but is also at the same time demonizing the Muslims Worldwide through the Islam phobia which is constructed around the evil deeds of the likes of Al Qaeda or ISIS.

How can we bring in reason in ‘social thinking’ in the face of powerful vested interests who want to use and abuse religion for their political goals, demonize a religious community is a question not easy to resolve. Challenging the prevalence of ideas of the dominant sections, dominant social powers; is a tall order, which has to be taken up in all seriousness if we want peace and progress in our society.

Read More

A Nobel for Malala

Ram Puniyani                                                                

Pakistan has been facing innumerable troubles, not entirely due to its own faults. The whole politics of oil, the designs of Empire and the subservience of Mullah-Military complex to the US designs have brought in lot of misery in the region. Currently one is painfully witnessing the plight of a young girl, Malala Yususzai, (Age 15) who is battling for her life after she was shot twice by the Taliban. (October 2012) Her ‘crime’ has been that she dared to defy the Taliban dictats and expressed her longing for education for herself, and for the education of other girls. When Taliban became powerful in Swat valley they shut down girls’ schools and women were banned from social space till Pakistan got control over the area, but still Taliban’s influence in the area did not vanish.

During this period Malala, a young girl, then aged 12, started writing her diary for BBC Urdu, and later a film with her in the center was made by New York Times, ‘A Class Dismissed’. She emerged as the major voice of rebellion against the fundamentalist assertiveness of Taliban, the reason for which she was shot by them due to which she is currently struggling for her life. Taliban like all fundamentalist streams uphold the oppressive patriarchal values, where social space is a strict ‘no no’ for women, who are supposed to take care of Kitchen, Children and their life has to revolve around instructions of Mullahs. In the transition from feudal society to the democratic norms, the major change is that of caste/class and gender transformation. There is no straightforward formula for this. In the countries where the democratic revolutions were complete, the feudal norms of caste-gender hierarchy were overthrown along with the rule of Kings-Feudal elements.

In colonies the introduction of newer set of norms of modern education, industrialization and the consequent changes in the society did bring in social movements, enabling society to come out of the grip of older set of values. The grip of older dominating forces, kings-landlords, was not done away with totally in most post colonial states. The newer classes, the industrialists-workers-educated classes came up side by side with the declining section of society, the feudal elements. The declining sections did not disappear and so they tried to preserve and assert their values and social norms under the garb of religion, politics in the name of religion, what is popularly referred to as communalism. As such it is abuse of religions’ identity to uphold and impose the norms of feudal society in the newer language.

In colonies, particularly talking of Indian sub continent, the subjugated sections of society, the low caste and the women had a marathon struggle on hand to strive for equality and to come to the social space, this struggle is not yet over despite sixty years of Independence in the Indian part of the post partition area, while in Pakistan the process has been slower and has seen a massive reversal after the Zia ul Haq-Maulana Maududi regime. The same got further worsened with the coming up of Mujahideen-Taliban- Al Qaeda, a process supported or rather engineered by United States and Saudi Arabia. The ideological use of Wahhabi version of Islam to train Mujahedeen-Taliban interprets Islam in a backward way to enslave the women and other weaker sections of society. 

In India the trajectory has been parallel to some extent. As fundamentalism, political assertion in the garb of fundamentals of religion, rose in the West Asia-Pakistan, in India we see the rise of communalism in the name of Hindu religion with parallel agenda, which has pushed back the march of caste and gender towards equality. During 19th century, Indian women had to face something very close to what Malala and large section of girls-woman are facing today in Taliban dominated area. Savitribai Phule, who began the school for girls, had to face the wrath of the conservative sections of society. As Malala has to hide the books under her shawl, a woman named Rash Sundari Devi in Bengal had to hide her longing for reading, as touching a printed paper was regarded as sin. In her autobiography Aamar Jeevan (My Life) she tells the challenges she faced as a woman who wanted to learn. She learnt reading by picking up newspapers when men folk were not at home. Lot of rumors were spread to stall education of girls. The struggle of Pandita Rama bai, Anandi Gopal and many of their contemporaries, to get education, was equally harrowing. Even today girls’ education is lagging behind in its reach and importance in large parts of the country.

In earlier part of 20th Century in United States when the social transformation for caste (class) and gender began, the conservative Christian groups opposed this social change by bringing out ten small booklets called Fundamentals, which argued against women and workers rights in the language of religion.  It is from these booklets that the term Fundamentalism emerged. The fundamentalist tendencies have resurfaced world over during last three decades or so, and have been promoted by the Imperialist powers in West Asia in particular. Similarly when Hitler rampaged the democracy in Germany in the name of Race, he dictated that the life of women should revolve around Kitchen Church and Children. Similar things, coated with sugary syrup are being beamed through the Television serials in India, where the unending Saas bhi Kabhi Bahu thi… serials dominate the television and give the message of subordination of women. To add to the impact of these serials, the Godmen, hordes of them who have mushroomed during this period, talk of such norms in a refined language and they do have higher acceptability and sanctity.

Pakistan society today is the victim of many phenomenons at the same time. While US created the Frankenstein’s monster of Taliban-Al Qaeda, today the same US-Nato wants to do away with them through drone attacks. These drone attacks are hardly a solution to the cancer which they have planted in this part of the World. The large section of Pakistan society is realizing and standing with the aspirations of Malala, knowing fully-well that she does represent the longing of girls of her age. Most parents in the region want their girls to be educated and wish them a future of knowledge and enlightenment. Many a scholars of Islam remind us that learning-education, both for men and women has a high place in the teachings of Prophet, while there are many others who draw from other sources to justify the shootings of Malalas. There are peace rallies in Pakistan which are telling the Talibans, ‘Bandukon Wale Darte hain Ek Nanhi Ladki se’ (Those with guns are scared of of a little girl). This section also knows the dilemmas of their country have roots in, the ideology from Saudi, the machinations of CIA operating through the military mullah complex. 

The ‘Malala moment’ is a serious turning point for Pakistan. Which way it wants to go, which way it can make space for itself? The past cannot be changed. Today’s problems created by Taliban and its clones need a serious engagement, a ‘do or die’ situation for Pakistan’s democracy. The persistence of Taliban is a malignant disease eating up its vitals. It needs to be put behind, this ideology and this mindset has to be thrown in the dustbin of history with total willpower, determination and efforts. Those in the subcontinent need to hold their hands for democracy and freedom from imperialist domination. We, in the region, need to strive towards solidarity for a democratic South Asia to bury the ideologies operating in the name of religion. We all need to stand with the cause of Malala!

Read More

Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, and Critique of Religion

Ayatolah Khomenini’s fatwa sentencing Slaman Rushdie to death for writing the ‘blasphemous’ novel The Satanic Verses was perhaps the curtain raiser for the religious extremism, intolerance, and violence that would mark the dying decades of twentieth century and the birth of the next. The ugly, hydra-headed religious fanaticism of every variety continues to threaten the cherished values of enlightenment.

Rushdie’s recently published memoir, Joseph Anton, takes you through the travails of the author during those fatwa years, when Islamist assassins were on the prowl to execute him in order to claim the bounty announced by the Shia cleric and, of course, to reserve a place in heaven where rivers of wine flows non-stop and nubile girls roam around.

The book derives its title from the pseudonym Rushdie used during the fatwa years in order not to be identified by the fanatics. The memoir however is not merely a narrative of the ordeals that Rushdie had gone through during those years. The book provides a Rushdie enthusiast or a bibliophile a wealth of interesting materials on what led to the writing of Rushdie’s literary creations, including The Satanic Verses.

What we want to highlight here however is the book’s unequivocal advocacy of secularism, modernity, and rationality as opposed to religious bigotry and intolerance.

Rushdie finds the origin of Islam fascinating because, unlike many other religions, ‘it was an event inside history’, and hence “it was obviously influenced by the events and pressures and ideas of the time of its creation; that to historicise the story, to try to understand how a great ideas was shaped by those forces, was the only possible approach to the subject”.

Al-Lah, Mohammed and Divine Revelations

To Rushdie,

“Revelation was to be understood as an interior, subjective event, not an objective reality, and a revealed text was to be scrutinized like any other text, using all the tools of the critics, literary, historical, psychological, linguistic and sociological.  In short, the text was to be regarded as a human artifact and thus, like all such artifacts, prey to human fallibility and imperfection”. (Page 24)

Undoubtedly, this would be the stand of any right thinking person, though not of an Islamist, who recites Quran as the word of god and hence considers it blasphemous to read it rationally.

On Allah gaining prominence in the Islamic imagery, Rushdie writes:

“Mecca was prosperous….At the gates to the city stood temples to three goddesses, al-Lat, al-manat and al-Uzza. Winged goddesses, like exalted birds. Or angels. Each time the trading caravans from which the city gained its wealth left the city gates, or came back through them, they paused at one of the temples and made an offering. Or, to use modern language: paid a tax. The wealthiest families in Mecca controlled the temples and muchof their wealth came from these ‘offerings’. The winged goddesses were at the heart of the economy of the new city, of the urban civilisation that was coming into being.

“In the building known as the Cube, or Ka’aba, in the centre of town there were idols of hundreds of gods. One of these statues, by no means the most popular, represented a deity called al-Lah, meaning the god, just as al-Lat was the goddess. Al-Lah was unusual in that he didn’t specialize, he wasn’t a rain god or a wealth god or a war god or a love god, he was just, vaguely, an everything god.  It may be that this failure to specialize explained his relative unpopularity.  People making offering to gods usually did so for specific reasons, the health of a child, the future of a business enterprise, a drought, a quarrel, a romance.  There preferred gods who were experts in their field to this non-specific all-rounder of a deity. However, al-Lah was about to become more popular than any pagan deity had ever been. 

“The man who would pluck al-Lah from near-obscurity and become his Prophet, transforming him into the equal, or at least equivalent, of the Old Testament God I Am and the New Testament’s Three-in-One, was Muhammad Ibn Abdullah of the Banu Hashim family….

“Here was a fascinating paradox: that an essentially conservative theology, looking backwards with affection towards a vanishing culture, became a revolutionary idea, because the people whom it attracted most strongly were those who had been marginialised by urbanization – the disaffected poor, the street mob. This, perhaps, was why Islam, the new idea, felt so threatening to the Meccan elite…” (Page 41-43)

Satanic Verses and Status of women in Islam

Anyone pondering over the status of women in Islamic societies today may wonder how it came to be so. Here, again, Rushdie take us to the early years of Islam:

“… … most of the major collections of Hadith, or traditions, about the life of he Prophet told the story of an incident that afterwards became known as the incident of the satanic verses. The Prophet came down from the mountain one day and recited the sura (number 53) call an-Najm, the Star. It contained these words: ‘have you heard of al-Lat and al-Uzza, and al-Manat, the third, the other one? They are the exalted birds, and their intercession is greatly to be desired.’ At a later point – was it days later? Or weeks, or months? – he returned to the mountain and came down, abashed, to state that he had been deceived on his previous visit; the Devil had appeared to him in the guise of the archangel, and the verses he had been given were therefore not divine, but satanic, and should be expunged from the Quran at once. The angel had, on this occasion, brought new verses from God, which were to replace the satanic verses in the great book: ‘have you heard of al-lat and al-Uzza, and al-Manat, the third, the other one? They are but names that your forefathers invented, and there is no truth in them.  Shall God have daughters while you have sons? That would be an unjust division.’ And in this way the Recitation was purified of the Devil’s work. … …

“The ‘true’ verses, angelic or divine, were clear: it was the femaleness of the winged goddesses – the ‘exalted birds’ – that rendered them inferior and fraudulent and proved they could not be the children of God, as the angels were.  Sometime the birth of a great idea revealed things about it future; the way in which newness enters the world prophesied how it would behave when it grew old.  At the birth of this particular idea, femaleness was seen as a disqualification from exaltation.” (Page 43-45)

During the days following Ayatolah Khomeni’s fatwa, a number of writers came to the defence of Rushdie. The South African writer Paul Trewhela was one among them. Rushdie says, Trewhela defended him describing “the Islamist campaign as a ‘bursting forth of mass popular irrationalism’, arguing that “it was ‘the novel’s secularizing tendency that was at issue…its intention to ‘discuss Muhammad as if he were human’... and he argued for a robust secularist response to the religious attack” (Page 125).

Blasphemy

The Khomeni-inspired Islamists used every available means to spread their culture of hate and violence. Here is Rushdie:

“Modern information technology was being used in the service of retrograde ideas: the modern was being turned against itself by the medieval, in the service of a world view that disliked modernity itself – rational, reasonable, innovative, secular, skeptical, challenging, creative modernity, the antithesis of mystical, static, intolerant, stultifying faith.  The rising tide of Islamic radicalism was described by its own ideologues as a ‘revolt against history’. History, the forward progress of peoples through time, was itself the enemy, more than any mere infidels or blasphemers.” (Page 131)

Commenting on Iranian Nights, a play written by Tariq Ali with a character after Salman Rushdie himself, Rushdie writes in his memoir:

“Among the subjects the play did not explore were: religion as political repression and as international terrorism; the need for blasphemy (the writers of the French Enlightenment had deliberately used blasphemy as a weapon, refusing to accept the power of the Church to set limiting points on thought); religion as the enemy of the intellect.”  (Page 177). 

Rushdie says these were the themes he might have treated had he written the play!

On the other hand, The Blasphemer’s Banquet, a play written by the poet Tony Harrison, treats blasphemy “being at the very root of Western culture.  The trials of Socrates, Jesus Christ and Galileo had all been blasphemy trials and yet the history of philosophy, Christianity, and science owed them a mighty debt.”

“At the heart of the dispute over The Satanic Verses”, writes Rushdie,

“…was a question of profound importance: who shall have the control over the story? Who has, who should have, the power not only to tell the stories with which, and within which, we all lived, but also to say in what manner those stories may be told? For everyone lived by and inside stories, the so-called grand narratives. The nation was a story, and the family was another, and religion was a third.  As a creative artist he knew that the only answer to the question was: Everyone and anyone has, or should have that power.  We should all be free to take the grand narratives to task, to argue with them, satirise them, and insist that they change or reflect the changing times.  We should speak of them reverently, irreverently, passionately, caustically, or however we chose. That was our right as members of an open society.”

Cultural Relativism and Islamophobia

Cultural relativism is the favorite stance of religious apologists (and post-modernists as well). This has been used to justify every atrocities committed against the oppressed and especially against religion-based atrocities against women – be it burning of women in the pyre of their deceased husbands (sati), mutilation of girls, the practice of purdah, child marriage, and what not.

In this context, Rushdie quotes from an imaginary letter he wrote to the British Member of Parliament, Bernie Grant:

“Cultural relativism is the death of ethical thought, supporting the right of tyrannical priest to tyrannise, of despotic parent to mutilate their daughters, of bigoted individuals to hate homosexuals and Jews, because it is a part of their ‘culture’ to do so.  Bigotry, prejudice and violence or the threat of violence are not human ‘values’.  They are proof of the absence of such values.  They are not the manifestations of a person’s ‘culture’.  They are indications of a person’s lack of culture. (Page 187)

On the coinage of the word Islamophobia, Rushdie writes:

“A new word had been created to help the blind remain blind: Islamophobia. To criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot. A phobic person was extreme and irrational in his views, and so the fault lay with such persons and not with the belief system that boasted over one billion followers worldwide. One billion believers could not be wrong, therefore the critics must be the ones foaming at the mouth. When did it become irrational to dislike religion, any religion, even to dislike it vehemently? When did reason get redescribed as unreason? When were the fairy stories of the superstitious placed above criticism, beyond satire? A religion was not a race. It was an idea, and ideas stood (or fell) because they were strong enough (or too weak) to withstand criticism, not because they were shielded from it. Strong ideas welcomed dissent….

“It was Islam that had changed, not people like himself, it was Islam that had become phobic of a very wide range of ideas, behaviours and things. In those years and in the years that followed, Islamic voices in this or that part of the world – Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan – anathematized theatre, film and music, and musicians and performers were mutilated and killed. Representational art was evil, and so the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban.

“‘Islamophobia’ was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head.

“He knew, as surely as he knew anything, that the fanatical cancer spreading through Muslim communities would, in the end, explode into the wider world beyond Islam. Ifthe intellectual battle was lost – if this new Islam established its right to be ‘respected’ and to have its opponents excoriated, placed beyond the pale and, why not, even killed – then political defeat would follow” (Page 344-46)

Joseph Anton: A Memoir – Salman Rushdie
Published by Jonathan Cape, 2012

Read More

Vicious Cycle of Islamophobia

Ram Puniyani

We are going through strange times. While the science, technology and rationalism has given us physical and intellectual tools to better the lot of humanity, we are witnessing the production of provocative material, literature and films in particular, which demonize the particular religion, Islam to be precise, and the prophet of Islam. On the other hand there is a section of community, feeling threatened and insecure coming to the streets to protest against such humiliation and insult of their religion. There are debates on freedom of expression, but how come the freedom of expression always goes to humiliate and demonize one particular religion only?

Currently (September 2012), there are massive protests in different countries against the American embassies, resulting in death of four from the US staff, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi. Different countries are asking Google, the owner of YouTube, which is hosting this provocative and insulting video clip, ‘Innocence of Muslims’, to withdraw the film clip. At places the video clip has been withdrawn and blocked. US sticks to its ‘Freedom of Expression’ stance and the many protesters are still on the streets.

The film clip, of around 14 minutes duration is part of the full length feature film made by Nakoula Basseley, a US based Christian. The film is very insulting to Islam. In this film large number of modern day mob of bearded Muslims is shown to be attacking Christians. It also takes the audience back in time to show a distorted life of Prophet Mohammad with negative and aggressive traits of personality. It is crude film, made in extremely poor taste and has generated strong reaction amongst large section of Muslims.  It must be pointed out that this is not the only type of reaction to this film. There are sections of clerics who have asked the Muslims to keep restrain. Quoting the moral precepts from Islam, Quran, they said that Islam is a religion of peace and no violent protests should be held. The best response to this despicable film has been from a section of Muslims distributing the book on life of Prophet Mohammad, the prophet of peace.

During last several years, it has become a sort of standard pattern by many in the West and some here in India to demonize Islam. We remember the Danish cartoon of Prophet, where he is shown as a terrorist, with a bomb tucked in his turban. A Florida Pastor went on to burn this holy book, Koran, saying that Koran teaches violence. Some US soldiers in Afghanistan also burnt copies of Koran, on the ground that the terrorist elements had written messages on those copies.

Muslims in Chennai protest against the film "Innocence of Muslims"
Courtesy: The Hindu

The demonization of Islam and Muslims has a pattern and agenda. The cartons and films are the outcome of the deeper political processes, which aim to control the oil wells in West Asia. The imperialist greed of United States marshaled the flag of “Islam the New threat” since Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, overthrowing the US stooge Raza Shah Pahlavi. Later the slogan was worsened with US setting up Madrassas in Pakistan to train Al Qaeda-Taliban to initiate the Muslim youth to fight against the occupying Russian armies in Afghanistan. The word, Jihad and kafir were distorted to indoctrinate the Muslim youth in these Madrassas.  With later trajectories and the event of 9/11, World Trade Center attack, the US media with all its guile, popularized the phrase ‘Islamic Terrorism’. The phrase was picked up by the media all over the World and later became part of the social common sense. This is a major abuse of religion for political goals by the imperialist power. One can understand this demonization of Islam as a part of US policy, a cover to hide its agenda to control the oil. To understand it in the way Noam Chomsky ‘coined the phrase’ Manufacturing Consent’, the coining of the word Islamic terrorism is part of the US mechanism of manufacturing consent of the world to give assent to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

This US policy gas given rise to twin processes. On one hand the phenomenon like a Florida Pastor Terry Jones burning Koran or the Danish cartoonist drawing Prophet Mohammad as terrorist or the present film has been the outcome of the intense propaganda against Islam. This US propaganda has been backed up by the US sponsored ideology of ‘Clash of Civilizations’, according to which the current era of World History is the era of assault of backward Islamic civilization on the advanced Western civilization. This distorted perception, this ideology was used as a cover for US agenda in West Asia. The other process which got unleashed was that the psyche of global Muslim community started being affected. The perception came up that Muslims (Afghanistan and Iraq) are being attacked, they are under threat. In India the added aspect was the rise of RSS type politics, bringing up Ram Temple issue and starting hatred for Muslims. A large section of Muslims started feeling intimidated and besieged. It became easy for mobilizing them around identity issues. Any community which feels besieged, section of it becomes vulnerable to easy provocation and identity based mobilization.

It is a vicious circle, the Islamophobia on one side and besieged community on the other. In this scenario the Muslim clerics who are asking for peace are the beacon lights of hope for the community. The Muslims who are distributing the books on life of prophet need to be complimented. This is what the sane response from the community has to be. What about US, imperialist designs and its mighty propaganda machinery doing all the mischief in the world? Can there be a process of controlling that? Under Kofi Annan, when he was Secretary General of United Nations, a high level committee produced a report, ‘Alliance of Civilizations’. This report got lost under the barrage of Islamphobia. It is time the world as such takes note of the deeper humane values which have developed by humanity over a period of time, the values which have led to the reports of type of ‘Alliance of civilizations’, the UN conventions which have conceptualized the Human rights for all.

The trigger which has incited the demonization process of religion and films like this one are provoking these insane reactions from a section of Muslims. Can United Nations be revived as a global platform for monitoring the norms for Nations, media and other aspects of our global life evolved to ensure that democratization and human dignity is promoted. Can the World come forward to check the aggressions of ‘The Super Power’? That’s when such films will cease to act as factors promoting violent reactions. And even such crude attempts at insulting others’ religion will come down. May be with such norms and restraints on US policies we can hope that such incidents will come down. Even if there are elements making some films like this there will be others making a film giving their own versions of Prophet’s Mission of peace in the World. 

And finally we also need to preserve the concept of freedom of expression moderated with its limits. We also need to cultivate methods of protest where hysterical emotions are kept at bay and rational approach is brought to the fore. 

Read More

Why I Left Islam

Ali Sina

I am often asked, Why I left Islam? As absurd as it may be, some Muslims cannot even allow themselves to think that leaving Islam is an option, or even possible. They rather think that those who leave Islam are paid Jewish agents than accept the fact that people have freedom to think and some may even think that Islam is not for them. The following are my reasons: 

Until few years ago I used to think that my faith in Islam was not based on blind imitation but rather was the result of years of investigation and research. The fact that I had read a lot of books on Islam, written by people whose thoughts I approved of and delving into philosophies that were within my comfort zone, emphasized my conviction that I had found the truth. All my biased research confirmed my faith. Just like other Muslims I used to believe that to learn about anything one has to go to the source. Of course the source of Islam is the Quran and the books written by Muslim scholars. Therefore, I felt no need to look elsewhere in order to find the truth, as I was convinced that I have already found it. As Muslims say "Talabe ilm ba'd az wossule ma'loom mazmoom". The search of knowledge after gaining it is unnecessary.

Courtesy: Wikipedia

Now I realize this was a mistake. What if we want to learn the truth about one of these dangerous cults? Is it enough to depend only on what the cult leader and his deluded followers say? Wouldn't it be prudent to widen our research and find out what other people have to say about them? Going to the source makes sense only in scientific matters, because scientists are not "believers". They do not say something because they have blind faith. Scientists make a critical analysis of the evidence. It is very much different from religious approach that is based entirely on faith and belief.

I suppose it was my acquaintance with the western humanistic values that made me more sensitive and whetted my appetite for democracy, freethinking, human rights, equality, etc. It was then that when I reread the Quran I came across injunctions that were not on a par with my newfound humanistic values, I was distressed and felt uncomfortable to read teachings like these:

Q.3:90

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, - never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have gone astray.

Q.16: 106

Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

One may think that the dreadful penalty mentioned here pertains to the next world. But Muhammad made sure that these people received their penalty in this world as well:

Q 9.14

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

There are also Hadiths that clearly says " So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection." 

Elsewhere we read: 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

I found many tales of brutality of Muhammad like this story: 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261:

Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you sh ould join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails, which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died. 

And from Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4339

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.

The more I read the more I questioned the sense of Justice of Muhammad. The following is very disturbing. I dare to say that any man who reads it and is not taken aback with disgust has a long way to go to become a human.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

I felt the above story was a manifest injustice. Muhammad condoned a man killing a pregnant mother and his own unborn child just because he said that she insulted the Prophet!

(Arabs used to sleep with their maid slaves. Quran perpetuates this tradition Q.33: 52 Muhammad himself slept with Mariyah the maid slave of Hafsa his wife without marrying her.)

Forgiving someone for killing another human being just because he said she insulted Muhammad is unacceptable. What if that man was lying to escape punishment? What does this story say about Muhammad's sense of Justice? During the past 1400 years, how many husbands escaped punishment for killing their innocent wives by accusing them of blaspheming the prophet of God and this Hadith made them get away with it?

Here is another one:

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4349

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

It was not easy to read these stories and not be moved. There is no reason to believe that all these stories were fabricated. Why should believers, who have tried to depict their prophet as a compassionate man fabricate so many stories that would make him look like a ruthless tyrant? 

I could no longer accept the brutal treatment of those who chose not to accept Islam. Faith is a personal matter. I could no more accept that the punishment of someone who criticizes any religion must be death. 

See how Muhammad dealt with the unbelievers:

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4359

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment, which he deserves."

How could a messenger of God maim and crucify people on the account that they resist accepting him? Could such a person really be a messenger of God? Wasn't there a better man with more moral and ethical fortitude to bear this mighty responsibility?

I could not accept the fact that Muhammad slaughtered 900 Jews in one day, after he captured them in a raid that he started. I read the following story and I shivered:

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair

Also, I found following story shocking:

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4396

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot. So his (left) foot was cut off. He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.) He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.

He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him. So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

Seems that Muhammad passed judgment before hearing the case. Also by cutting a thief's hand he is left with no other means to earn his bread except begging, which would be difficult since he is defamed as a thief and so hated by people. Therefore re-offending becomes his only means of livelihood.

After living many years in the West and being received kindly by people of other religions or of no religion, who loved me and accepted me as their friend; who let me into their lives and their heart, I could no longer accept the following mandates of the Quran as the words of God:

Q.58: 22

You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger'c

Q.3: 118-120

O you who believe! Take not as (your) bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made clear to you the aayaat (proofs, evidence, verses), if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e., you believe in the Tawraat and the Injeel, while they disbelieve in your Book (the Qur'an)]. And when they meet you, they say, 'eWe believe.' But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: 'ePerish in your rage. Certainly Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets).' If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it'c 

And

Q.5: 51

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as awliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but awliya' to one another’s 

I also found the above statement false. The evidence is in the Bosnia and Kosovo crisis; where Christian countries, waged war against another Christian country, to liberate Muslims. Many Jewish doctors volunteered to help the Kosovar refugees, despite the fact that during the WWII, the same Albanian Muslims took sides with Hitler and helped him in his holocaust against the Jews.

It became obvious to me that Muslims are accepted by all the people of the world yet our prophet wants us to hate them, to disassociate ourselves from them, to force them into our way of life or kill them, subdue them and make them pay Jizya. How silly! How pathetic! How inhumane! No wonder there is so much inexplicable hate of the West and of the Jews among Muslims. It was Muhammad who inseminated the hate and the distrust of the non-believers among his followers. How can Muslims integrate with other nations while holding these hateful messages of the Quran as the words of God?

There are many Muslims who immigrate to non-Muslim countries and are received with open arms. Many of them get into politics and become part of the ruling elite. We suffer no discrimination in the non-Islamic countries. But see how our holy prophet tells us to deal with non-Muslims where we are the majority:

Q.9: 29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

I also find the following verses completely against my conscience. I love all humanity and wish everyone to be happy in this world and forgiven in the next. But my holy prophet bade me not to seek forgiveness for the unbelievers even if they are my parents and beloved ones.

(Interpretation of the meaning by Muhsin Khan):

Q.9: 113

It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allaah's forgiveness for the mushrikeen, even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in state of disbelief).

Quran and hadith are full of outrageous verses like these that to me are clear proof that Muhammad was not a prophet, but a cult leader. To force people to denounce their own family is what cults do. He was an impostor who lied so loudly and so forcefully that the ignorant people of his time believed in him. Then the following generations echoed these lies passing them to the next. Philosophers and writers were born in this atmosphere of lies and elaborated on them, embellished them, and made them credible. But when you go to the core of the religion, when you read the Quran and study the hadith you see they are nothing but pure nonsense. Rumi was a great poet and a mystic, he tried to give Islam mystical significance that it lacked. But what Rumi said is Rumi's thinkimg. Quran is bereft of mystical meanings. Muhammad's concept of religion and god was extremely primitive. Why Rumi, Attar, Sohravardi or other mystics strive to attribute meanings to senseless verses of the Quran has to do with their upbringing as Muslim kids. On one hand, unlike the more rationalist thinkers such as Ar Razi, they could not denounce Islam altogether for it was ingrained in their subconscious mind. Nothing is more difficult to get rid of than religion. This is truly the most potent narcotic if it is administered to a person from childhood. Yet as intelligent people it was not possible for these great minds to accept the Quran for its face value. Therefore they tried to find esoteric meanings in meaningless verses of the Quran and it was they who gave birth to a new religion that had nothing to do with what was taught by Muhammad. Yet this religion was palatable to those with brains.

Thus we have two Islams. One that makes strives to attribute mystical significance and otherworldly meanings to the inane teachings of the Quran, as is professed by Sufis, and the other that rejects any interpretation of these verses beyond their literal meanings, as is practiced by the majority of Muslims with their hub in Saudi Arabia among the Wahhabis. And of course there is a myriad of sects that go in between these two extremes, each interpreting the Quran according to their own whims and caprices, each calling others mortad or heretics and constantly making war among themselves to impose their own "right" version of the pure Islam on others. 

However, the real Islam is not what its philosophers and mystics have inferred but what is in the Quran and that is the Islam of the fundamentalist and the terrorist. The real Islam is the Islam that abuses women, that allows men to beat their wives, that imposes penalty tax on the religious minorities, that wants to dominate the world by subduing all the non-Muslims, that calls for Jihad and killing the non-believers until Islam becomes the only dominant religion of the World. 

My rejection of Islam is not based on the bad deeds of the Muslims but on the bad teachings of its holy book and on the bad deeds of its founder. Many cruelties and heinous acts of violence, perpetrated by Muslims throughout the centuries were inspired by the Quran and the Sunnah (the examples of the prophet). That is why I condemn ISLAM for the bad things that Muslims do. Any effort to humanize Islam is a waste of time. The obstacle to any reform is Quran. The enemy is Islam and that is the target of my attacks. I do that, despite knowing that I have become the magnet of the hatred of fanatical Muslims and my own life could be in danger. Yet I know that by eradicating Islam we can save the world from the dangers of a catastrophe that otherwise is looming over our heads and could cause more disaster than the 1st and 2nd World Wars combined. Eradication of Islam means restoring peace among humanity and civility, democracy and prosperity in the Muslim world.

(Reproduced with permission from: http://www.islam-watch.org/)

(Courtesy: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/why_i_left_islam.htm/)

Read More