Path of Islam

Assalam alaykum / Peace be upon you

In the last year or two in France, the third bill on this issue was proposed: the banning of the face-veil worn by Muslim women. Let us actually examine this bill and the motives behind it. After-all, when a government acts, it should help and benefit its people, within the limits of human rights and morality, and not for its own interests, motives, or agendas.

"(EPA) A young Muslim girl has a 'Fraternity' headband as she protests against a looming French ban" (source 1)

The bill originally wanted the burqa/burkha (an attire commonly worn in Afghanistan) or the Niqaab (meaning ‘face-veil’) to be banned in France. The reasons given for this have been security, giving women a choice by ending their supposed oppression by the Niqaab, inhibiting extremism, and in the interests of secularism. Some of these reasons are valid and they would show that the French Government is indeed behaving correctly, if true. However, when one examines these reasons, they fall apart, and reveal something else entirely.

1) “Ban the Niqaab for security”

The idea here is that identification of faces is necessary for the safety of a people to be ensured. This is a valid idea, but limited to certain areas. For example, a country has a right to demand that Muslimahs (Muslimah = Muslim woman) who wear the Niqaab, show their faces in passport photos. The supposed problem is that this conflicts with the fact that a Muslimah is wearing the Niqaab for religious reasons; but in actual fact, the Niqaab is only worn so that males (who have reached puberty) cannot see the face of a Muslimah. The solution here is simple: only females in the security teams of, say, airports have the right to see the passport photo of a Muslim with her face uncovered, and demand the Muslimah unveil her face in an enclosed area (i.e. not visible to the public or others). So here, a supposed problem has actually been simply resolved.

When it comes to minor issues of security, such as walking in the street or using public transport or going to hospitals, then it would be illogical to ban the Niqaab on the basis of security:

The first idea here is that it is necessary to see one’s face so that one identify the person. However this idea is not valid. A person with the intention to harm others in a public place can easily change his or her appearance. For example, growing a beard and moustache, dying your hair, getting a haircut (or shaving it all off) and changing your hairstyle, and many other methods, are all very effective means of changing your appearance to such an extent that you are no longer recognised. In-fact, the mentioned methods are so simply that anyone could do that. So clearly it is unimportant whether one’s face is shown or not when it comes to safety in common public places, for if someone really wanted to cause harm to the people present, then one could easily change their appearance. In-fact, it is not even necessary to hide one’s identity, by changing the appearance or covering the face, for a person could go ahead and cause harm to the people present, regardless of whatever may happen to him or her. Indeed, will a suicide bomber even care if his face is exposed, since he will also be killed?

The second idea is that when a Muslimah wears a Niqaab and loose-fitting outer garments, she can conceal weapons, and this represents a risk to public safety. On the contrary, anyone, be they Muslim or not, man or woman, could conceal weapons, even if they were wearing tight-clothing. We only need to think back to the recent incident of a man attempting to create a bomb on a British aeroplane by mixing concealed chemicals (an attempted attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253) to realise how simple it is to conceal a weapon.
Sikhs are required by their religion to carry around small knives. If the ban on Niqaab was truly on the basis of security, then a ban would also be set on carrying knives (in most circumstances). For while there is a small potential that a Muslimah has weapons on her person, there is a high probability that a practising Sikh will be carrying a weapon. The fact that no discussion has been held on this issue and no ban on Sikhs carrying knives has been suggested shows that the motive behind the ban on the Niqaab is not really about safety.

2) “Ban the Niqaab so Muslim women have a choice and aren’t forced into wearing it”

This supposed reason is very ironic. However, the first issue to consider is the claim that “Muslim women are forced into wearing the Niqaab”. This myth is often propagated, and often, if never, has evidence to back it up. It would only be necessary to help women being forced to wear the Niqaab if they were actually being forced to wear it. This is only logical.

A report by the French Interior Ministry showed that out of an estimated 5 million Muslims in France, only 1900 Muslim women actually wear the Niqaab (face-veil). This is 0.038%; less than even 1% of the population of Muslims. This, therefore, leads one to ask “Why then is there a widespread, national ban on something that is so small?” After-all, a government does not tackle issues which, relatively-speaking, affect hardly anyone. This is in-fact “tantamount to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly” (Qatar Living article).

Also, the fact that only about 0.038% of the Muslim population is actually wearing Niqaab, shows that the Muslim males are not forcing Muslim women to wear Niqaab; for if they were, then the percentage of those who wear Niqaab would be very high or at least significant, whereas the opposite is the case. Clearly then there is no oppression of Muslim women in France.
However even if a person was to insist that all of these 1900 Muslimahs wearing Niqaab were being forced to do so, then this claim needs to be proven. For it is nothing but a claim. For while there may be indeed some women who are being forced by Muslim men to wear Niqaab, we also need to remember that some Muslim women choose to wear the Niqaab. They want to wear it; (the question of whether the face-veil itself is an oppressive thing will be discussed later).  Why is those who continue to repeat the unproven myth, that all or most women who wear a face-veil are forced to do so, are so unwilling to accept the possibility that a Muslim woman can choose to wear it out of her own free will and desire?
At the very least, his exposes these supposed “supporters” of women’s rights as either being ignorant or being fundamentalists intent on spreading their beliefs, regardless of the truth.

Even if we assume that every single woman out of the 1900 is being forced to wear the Niqaab, then this is still problematic. For apart from the fact that 1900 is a very small number and less than 1% of the Muslim population in France, the French Government should be investigating ways into helping these (supposedly) oppressed women. For example, it should be sending the police to take a woman wearing Niqaab to a safe place to ask if she is being forced to wear it, and offer help. Not punishing the woman for being oppressed: For “Muslim women who wear the full Islamic veil in France will face a possible 750-euro (1,000-dollar) fine” (Qatar Living article). It is impossible to guarantee that it is the husbands/fathers of the Muslimahs who will pay the fine; and indeed it is the Muslim women who will have to pay the fine officially, not the males. If the French Government truly wanted to end the unproven oppression of these 1900 women, then it should be fining the male relatives/guardians of those who wear the Niqaab; by the logic of helping the oppressed, this is simply punishing the oppressed for being oppressed. It is also interesting to note that one of the punishments for wearing Niqaab is being refused to be treated at hospitals. So much for the pretence of helping the Muslimahs! Another of the punishments for the wearing of Niqaab is to for child support payments to be cut off. Does this really sound like the French Government cares about the Muslim woman, trying to practise her faith?

There is also another problem with fining, amongst the other deterrents and punishments, the Muslimahs who wear Niqaab: how is this supposed to guarantee that they will no longer be (supposedly) forced to wear it? The male oppressor could simply stop the woman from going out so that she still wears it. He could stop her from going to a hospital so that she still wears the Niqaab, risking her health, and perhaps even risking her life.

However let us assume not every single Muslim woman wearing Niqaab is being forced to do so, which is hardly a stretch. What has actually happened, contrary to the supposed reason of ending oppression of the women, is that the choice of these women has been taken away. For instead of being able to choose to wear the Niqaab, now she cannot because she will be fined and denied services, such as hospitals and transport. Forcing women to stop wearing the Niqaab, when they have chosen to do so, is nothing short of double standards. The French Government has banned women from wearing Niqaab in “public services”, which includes schools, hospitals, and public transport. This is taking away their choice to wear the Niqaab. Don’t forget that the headscarf is also partially banned, including in schools. If the French Government actually cared about the rights of the Muslim women, they wouldn’t be banning the headscarf, let alone the face-veil. It is a requirement in Islam that Muslim women wear the headscarf and there are plenty of Muslim women who wish to do so. The French Government is effectively banning both the headscarf and Niqaab in the name of giving women choice. In other words, the French Government is taking away the choice of Muslim women in the name of giving them choice. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It exposes the supposed reason of helping the Muslim women as being nothing except a feeble pretence.

It is ironic how many of those who support the ban often insist that Muslim women are being oppressed, and yet have never bothered to actually ask a Muslim woman about this. What happened to letting women speak for themselves? Go talk to a practising Muslim woman and ask her if she is being oppressed. Perhaps a small minority will say they are, and some will say they are only practising part of their religion, including the headscarf or Niqaab, out of cultural reasons, but many will tell you that they are not and that the scarf or veil in-fact frees them. In-fact, it is not even necessary to ask a Muslim woman directly. One can check on the internet for discussions and comments about the headscarf and Niqaab by Muslim women themselves; (although one should beware of fake “Muslims” on the internet claiming to be oppressed, but who are intent on spreading the myth with lies in order to attack Islam). Here are a few links to some Muslimahs talking about the face-veil or headscarf or Muslimahs trying to show the myth that they are oppressed is a lie: SaudiWoman’s weblog,  Facebook group ‘Hijab is my choice‘,  a blog post by a Muslimah entitled ‘Hijab doesn’t stop me from anything‘ , a story about wearing the Niqaab, a petition against the ban on Niqaab signed by Muslimahs in Canada, a blog by a non-Muslim woman who sometimes wears the Niqaab – Non-Muslim Niqaabi, a youtube video by a Muslimah who wears Niqaab explaining why she loves the Niqaab, an article by a convert on why she loves the veil, and many more.

3) “Ban the Niqaab because it itself is oppressive”

The funny thing is that many people who claim this can’t actually specifically explain how a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the Niqaab is somehow being oppressed by a piece of cloth. In Islam, the Niqaab is recommended to be worn as even greater act of modesty. By wearing it, it is practically impossible for a man to “rate” or judge a woman by her body. Indeed, it is interesting to see that the majority who helping or supporting the ban, who supposedly care enough about the Muslim women to not want them to be oppressed by wearing a face-veil, are actually men. It is impossible to rationalise how choosing to be very modest is somehow oppressive. How on earth is a female not wanting men to judge her by looks being oppressed? How is this somehow an insult to gender equality?
Indeed, it is hypocritical to say this when in France women are allowed to walk around in miniskirts and very low-cut tops, nearly naked. Is gender equality being helped here? Is the female being judged for her qualities, personality, and the ideas she carries or is she simply being rated, out of ten, perhaps like a piece of meat? If the French Government actually cared about the equality of women, as well as Muslim women specifically, they would not take the right to modesty that women have to modesty. They would instead ban adverts on French television where products are advertised with females wearing little or behaving suggestively, which is simply promoting men judging women for their looks rather than for herself.

4) “Ban the Niqaab because it promotes extremism”

There is no logical connection between a woman choosing to wear a Niqaab and extremism rising. It is simply that Muslim extremists tend to be from the few countries which order all women to wear Niqaab; there is no other connection. How will a Muslim woman wearing Niqaab out of great piety and out of wanting to be modest, somehow promote extremism?

By effectively banning the Niqaab in France, French Muslims and other Muslims will increasingly have feelings of dislike towards the French Government and France in general, and some of them will move to do the opposite of this ban. I.e. some will defend it, and a few will even start to wear it. The irony is that this ban will anger the extremists and increase their hatred of the West in general, and France specifically, and so increase the risk of an extremist attack in France. So much for public safety or preventing extremism! It will also increase Islamophobia.

5) “Ban the Niqaab in the interests of secularism”

This is part of the only real reason for the ban of the Niqaab. Another part of the reason is Islamophobia. France, after having been oppressed by the Church for a few centuries, is now paranoid of religion. It is disturbing for it to see increasing numbers of French people, whether they are of French origin or immigrant descent, become religious. The headscarf and Niqaab are seen as symbols of religion (even though the former is an obligation), and so there are attempts to ’squash’ them. And so the French Government has taken away women’s choice to wear them in the name of protecting women’s rights. The ban is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Muslims practising their religion and Islam itself.

(source 2)

What has happened to freedom of religion in this supposedly free country? The irony is that secularism a particular ideology, just like religion, and could perhaps be even called a religion too, under the definition of “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” (dictionary). The French government should explain what it gives it the right to force secularism on every French person, be they Muslim or not, and promote secularist thinking, and should stop trying to ’squash’ any possible uprising religiosity in the name of giving freedom. It is ironic that the French Government attacks Muslims and Islam for supposedly forcing Muslim women to wear the Niqaab, yet it has effectively banned it, in an attempt to force Muslim to stop wearing it. The French Government could not completely ban the Niqaab, because of warnings it would be unconstitutional. What about the freedom to practice one’s religion?

“What about the Muslims who support the ban?”

Those who support the ban have no right to bear the title of “Muslim”, which comes with the principles of loyalty and brotherhood/sisterhood. Just because the Niqaab is not obligatory in Islam, does not make it “okay” and acceptable to ban it. If one were to suggest banning visiting the mosque on days other than Friday or banning any other Muslim practice which isn’t obligatory, these same people would complain. Why do they then allow, or even support, an attack on the Niqaab? The Niqaab is Sunnah and mustahab; for the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima az-Zahra, and the Prophet’s wives all wore the Niqaab. These are the role models for the Muslimahs. Would these same people try to stop these respected figures from wearing Niqaab? If they answer no, then why are they not protesting or even supporting such a ban?

In Canada, a Muslim group is asking the government to ban the Niqaab, and in Al-Azhar university, a sheikh is trying to ban the Niqaab. Their justification for attacking their own people and their own religion? Apparently the Niqaab is oppressive and it’s unnecessary, therefore it should be banned. The first has already been refuted and is very ironic considering the great female role-models of Islam, such as Fatima az-Zahra or the wives of the Prophet, wore Niqaab. It is also ironic because these are the same people who complain when Governments want to move one step after banning the Niqaab and want to ban the headscarf; they complain that people are just calling it oppression without letting women speak for themselves, and they insist it is not oppression. The other excuse given by the Canadian Muslim group and the sheikh in Al-Azhar university is that the Niqaab is not necessary, therefore it should be banned. Such an argument is not only illogical, but absurd. By that logic, everything Sunnah and mustahab in Islam should be banned because they are not obligatory. These people are causing splits and divisions in the Ummah; they are causing harm and preventing Muslim women from practising Islam. If these people are true Muslims, they must stop, for the sake of unity and so that they stop oppressing the Muslim women.

“What can I do?”

After examining the supposed reasons for the ban, we find that the ban is not about protecting Muslim women or safety, but simply an act on Islam and religion in general. This is both unfair and contradictory to the supposed freedom we are supposed to have in this “modern” and “free” country. Everyone must oppose the ban, because it is hypocritical, an attack on a woman’s right to modesty, and an attack on freedom of religion. This ban is worsening Muslim-nonMuslim relations and is increasing extremism. The French public are at a higher risk by terrorists.

The most important thing to do for the average person is to spread awareness of this issue. This bill is said to be supported by a large majority of the French people. If this is true, then this means a lot of the French are being duped by the false reasons given to attack Islam; they must be informed of the truth. Engage in debates and discussions with them and show them the truth about this ban and the consequences of this ban. If the people remain ignorant, the French Government will be able to continue along this hypocritical and dangerous path. People from countries other than France must be made aware of the problems with such a ban as well, in order to prevent such a thing happening in other non-Muslim countries. Raise awareness by protesting (peacefully), signing petitions, and organising events where speakers can talk about this issue.
With the help of Allah, we can end this oppression on those French women who want to practice Islam.

Source 1 = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7003246.ece

Source 2 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/23515821@N02/2244343793/

Popularity: 7%

Tags: ban, ban the niqab, baning, bann, banned, banning, burka, burkha, burqa, canada, canadian muslim group, choice, double standards, extremism, face-veil, faceveil, force, france, freedom of religion, french, french muslims, headscarf, hijaab, hijab, hijab is my choice, hypocrisy, islam, modest, modesty, muslim woman, muslim women, muslimah, muslimahs, muslims, niqaab, niqab, niqab is my choice, oppression, oppressive, public, public services, punishment, right, safety, secular interests, secularism, security, ummah, United Ummah, unity, veil, woman, women

Assalam alaykum (peace be upon you all).

Introduction

Recently, in Britain, the leader of the British National Party came on to the British television programme Question Time. Politicians and other prominent figures come onto Question Time to give their responses to questions, and also respond to comments from the audience. The appearance of Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, has sparked controversy, because the BNP is a widely believed to be a racist party. Griffin was able to come onto Question Time because of the BNP’s increasing popularity which has won them 2 seats in the recent European elections

Among the questions/statements proposed was regarding Islam, and the opportunity will be taken to refute what was said about Islam. Although Islam was defended by one of the politicians (Sayeeda Warsi), there were no refutations to the specific attacks made by Griffin. This will now be done.

The question was asked “why is Islam a wicked and vicious faith?”. David Dimbleby, Question Time’s presenter/chairman, explained that this was a quote from Nick Griffin speaking on Islam. When Griffin was asked why he had made this statement, Griffin explained: “Because it treats women as second class citizens; because it says that a woman, victim of rape, should be stoned to death for adultery; and because it orders its followers to be harsh with those of the unbelievers who live near to them; and it ordains as religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims. That’s in the Quran, there’s no point shaking your head. There are good points about Islam, for instance it opposes usury, it wouldn’t have let the banks run riot in the way that the Labour Party and the Tory Party have done, there are good points, but it doesn’t fit in with the fundamental values of British speech: free speech, democracy, and equal rights for women.” *some applause from some of the audience*

“So what’s your policy on Islam?” Dimbleby asked. Griffin first attacked the other political parties and the interference in the Middle East, then answered “…We should ensure that if Muslims are staying in this country, they do so on the understanding that our country must remain fundamentally a British and Christian country”.

Why is it necessary to respond?

The BNP’s increasing popularity, despite its racism, is worrying. It means that its views will be spread further. It was also disturbing to hear some applause from some of the audience after Griffin attacked Islam, showing Islamophobia is still alive and well.

Response:

Griffin defended his statement of calling Islam a “wicked and vicious faith” by giving a list of reasons. Therefore if the reasons are refuted, then Griffin will have no reason to call Islam a “wicked and vicious faith” and must drop the accusation.

1) “Because it treats women as second class citizens”. Griffin here is making the accusation that Islam favours men over women and treats it unfairly. This is far from the truth. Islam gave women rights over 1400 years ago. Before Islam, women in Arabia were treated like property (similar to the situation in England only a hundred years ago) and were inherited along with other materials when one Arabian mad died and passed on his belongings to his inheritor. Because they couldn’t contribute to military battles, they were treated very low. Fathers’ faces would blacken on hearing the news of the wife having given birth to a daughter, and the baby daughters would be buried.

Islam changed all this. It attacks anyone who is ashamed of having a daughter and the practice of burying her alive; the Quran describes it, saying:

And when the good news of [the birth of] the female is announced to them, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger.
He hides himself from the people because of the [alleged] evil of the good news which he has recieved, [and pondering] shall he keep her in disgrace or bury her in the earth? Verily, evil is their judgement. (Quran 16:58-59)

And when the female [infant], that was buried alive is questioned. “For what crime was buried alive?” (Quran 81:8-9)

Sadly some girls are still buried alive in parts of China and India.

In Britain, only a hundred years ago, and in pre-Islamic Arabic, women could be forced into marriage, treated cruelly, and could be martially raped. The Quran spoke out against this:

“O You who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you [the husbands] have given them [the wives], unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good.” (Quran 4:19)

Before Islam, women themselves were inherited; Islam came and gave women the right to inherit, the right to an education, the right to own property, and the right to a divorce. Britain passed a law which allowed women to divorce their husbands on the grounds of cruelty or desertion, in 1857. In 1870, Britain allowed women to keep the money they had earned. Islam gave all these rights and more 1400 years ago, whereas Britain gave women their rights around a hundred years ago. The point is not to claim superiority, but simply to point out in the time of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, the world had not given women rights and would not begin doing so until the 19th century.This shows you how important it was to the Prophet that women were given their rights. Indeed the Prophet spoke highly of anyone who treated women well.

On the topic of raising daughters, the Prophet said:

“Whoever takes care of two girls until they reach adulthood, he and I will come together on the Day of Resurrection like this” interlacing his fingers (meaning fathers of girl children will be with the Prophet in paradise).” (sunni hadith in the collection of Muslim)
In another hadith, he said: “They (girl children) will be a shield for him from the Fire.” (sunni hadith in the collections of Ahmad and Ibn Maajah)

One of the famous sayings of the Prophet on mothers is:

Paradise [i.e. Heaven] lies under the feet of the Mother. (sunni and shia hadith found in many books of hadith)

Many different exultations of the mother have been drawn from this well-known hadith. For example, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states: “The meaning of the Hadith is that you should serve your mother and take good care of her. Obey her as long as she does not tell you to do something haram. It does not make any difference whether the mother is Muslim or non-Muslim. It is the duty of the children to be respectful to their parents, especially mothers.” (source)

The Quran orders everyone to be respectful to their parents, especially the mothers:

And We enjoined the human being (kindness) regarding his parents. His mother bore him with hardship upon hardship, and his weaning takes two lunar years. You shall give thanks to Me, and to your parents. To Me is the final destiny. (Quran 31:14)

A Shia Muslim tafseer (explanation of the Quran) explains why the mother was given special mention:

“…the Qur’an points to the course of mother’s pregnancy in order to awaken the moral conscience of man and that he should not forsake the events of the past. He must always remember that his mother bore him and fed him with her own milk. She dispensed with her sleep and food for the sake of his tranquillity in a manner that no one was ready to bear such troubles…”

It can be clearly seen that Islam does not degrade the female.

2) ” Because it says that a woman, victim of rape, should be stoned to death for adultery”. Griffin’s claim is ludicrous to say the least. There is no basis for this in Islam whatsoever, and it is upto Griffin to prove it. After Griffin made a number of attacks against Islam, he finished by saying “that’s in the Quran, there’s no point shaking your head”. I call on Mr Griffin to point out the non-existent verse where the Quran has a punishment for the woman that is raped. It suffices to quote a single hadith to disprove Mr Griffin:

“There was a girl who was raped (at the time of the Prophet), she was freed from punishment for perzinahan (sexual intercourse outside of marriage), while the perpetrator was subjected to punishment” (sunni hadith from Tirmidhi)

It is well-known in Islamic law that when a person is forced to do something Islam forbids, they are not to be punished, because of the element of compulsion.

3) “and because it orders its followers to be harsh with those of the unbelievers who live near to them”. This cannot be true when one actually examines Muslim-nonMuslim relations. In the Constitution of Medina, the Prophet gave rights to both Jews and Christians, as well as to the Muslims; I urge Mr Griffin to read up on this.

In a well-known shia Muslim hadith, Ali ibn Abu Talib (a great companion of the Prophet and the fourth rightly-guided Caliph) says that a person is either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity. This reflects how a Muslim should interact with others.

The Quran speaks of protecting persecuted non-Muslims:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others [i.e. fighting against the oppressors], certainly there would have been pulled down monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. (Quran 22:39-40)

It is very interesting to see that Muslims are given the permission to fight (the fact that permission is needed to fight is enough of a proof to show that fighting is the exception in Islam, not the norm) against those who oppress people. Indeed, it is clear that the verse is talking about oppressed non-Muslims too, because of the general command in the first phrase. This extends even to protecting the rights of Jews and Christians (amongst others) to worship and practice their religions. This is far different to what Griffin has claimed.

To further explain the tolerance and kindness that is necessary between Muslims and non-Muslims would require several pages. These two links give detailed discussions and insights in the compassion and tolerance a Muslim should show towards a non-Muslim: Culture of Tolerance in Islam and Quranic foundations of Muslim/Non-Muslim relations.

4) “and it ordains as religious duty the murder of Jews as well as other non-Muslims. That’s in the Quran, there’s no point shaking your head.”

I ask Mr Griffin to please show me where the Quran ordains this as “religious duty”. It has been mentioned briefly above that fighting in Islam is an exception and not a norm. The verse Griffin is probably referring to is:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Quran 9:5)

This verse does seem to be very harsh, but a fundamental principle in understanding the Quran is context. Anyone can cherry-pick verses with any religious book, including the Bible. Even before consulting the context, one can see that the verse is only directed to idol-worshippers, and so Griffin’s statement that “it ordains as religious duty the murder of Jews” is obviously false. A proper detailed context would take too long to narrate, but it suffices to narrate a few facts:

The Prophet, despite his companions being killed and tortured and despite himself suffering greatly, did not fight against the idol-worshippers until his 15th year of Prophethood. His Prophethood was only 23 years long. For the first 15 years, he had not engaged in any battles. Since he, as a Prophet of Islam, avoided fighting so much, it cannot be claimed that fighting is a religious duty. This also shows that peace is the norm in Islam.

The Quran states the Prophet’s greatest victory is the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. Not a battle. The Prophet won some very great victories, for example when his army was much smaller than the army of the idol-worshippers. Surely if fighting was so highly prized in Islam, the Quran would describe one of these battles as the Prophet’s greatest victory, not a peace treaty.

Let us now quote verse 5 with its surrounding verses and then relate the context:

9:1 (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
9:2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

The Treaty of Hudaybiyah, which the Prophet brought about, stated that there would be peace between the Muslims and the idol-worshippers and that they would not fight each other for ten years. The treaty was soon broken by the idol-worshippers. After being persecuted and attacked so many times, Allah ordered that there would be no more peace treaties with the idol-worshippers, for they had continually killed Muslims and made them suffer. Chapter 9 of the Quran was revealed. It gave the idol-worshippers four months (verse 2 “so go about in the land for four months” and verse 5 “when the sacred months have passed”) to ask the Muslims forgiveness for breaking the treaty. If they didn’t, then the Muslims had permission to go fight the idol-worshippers (verse 3 “free from liability”). This is what any nation would do. If two nations make a peace treaty, and one nation breaks it, then the other nation will consider the treaty broken and fight again. However God gave the idol-worshippers a respite until the sacred months passed. In this time, the idol-worshippers could seek forgiveness for breaking the treaty. This is surely an act of tolerance.

It should also be noted that the Muslims could only fight those idol-worshippers who had broken the treaty. The treaty with those who hadn’t violated the peace, remained unbroken and so the Muslims would not fight them (verse 4). Safety was also given to those who broke the treaty but were apologetic (verse 6).

Therefore, it can be seen that it is not “religious duty” to fight, as Griffin claims. Indeed, the verse Griffin was probably referring to (9:5), when examined in context, is actually quite tolerant and logical: a treaty was made between the Muslims and idol-worshippers; it was broken; the Muslims were free from liability and now would fight against the idol-worshippers unless the latter repented in the four months of respite; they would not fight against those amongst the idol-worshippers who had not broken the treaty; those who had broken the treaty but sought safety were given it.

Now that all of Griffin’s reasons have been briefly refuted, he no longer can call Islam “wicked” or “vicious”. Indeed, Islam is peaceful, tolerant, and compassionate.

Is Islam incompatible with British values?

Griffin said “…but it doesn’t fit in with the fundamental values of British speech: free speech, democracy, and equal rights for women…”

Islam gives free speech too. What it doesn’t give is the freedom to be offensive. There is a difference between speaking freely, and speaking with the intent to offend. Even in British law, this applies. While freedom of speech exists, it is a crime to speak or write libel against others. In some European countries, it is even a crime to question the holocaust; all other historical incidents can be examined, except this one. (No, the holocaust isn’t being denied, a point is simply being made:) freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. One has the right to speak freely, but not abusively.

As for democracy, where does Islam forbid democracy? I ask Mr Griffin to study Iran which combines theocracy and democracy. At best, it could be argued that Islam prefers other systems to democracy; but this would only be relevant for an Islamic state. So it’s irrelevant what Islam’s position is on democracy, because Britain is not Muslim-majority.

Rights for women? Islam has indeed given rights to women as explained above. Islam says no person is superior to another except by piety.

If Islam was incompatible with British values, why do British people convert to Islam? Why do the children, who were born and bred in Britain, of those who immigrated to Britain live so well in Britain?

Griffin said “we should ensure that if Muslims are staying in this country, they do so on the understanding that our country must remain fundamentally a British and Christian country.”

Muslims aren’t a race. They are people who choose to follow and practice Islam. There are British converts to Islam. As for those Muslims who were born and bred in Britain but have Asian or Black or other origins, aren’t they British too? Their origins might be elsewhere, but they are raised in the country, are educated in the country, and are working in the country. This is simply a case of Griffin’s party, the BNP, wanting Britain for the white British, which is racism. Islam condemns racism.

Popularity: 9%

Tags: 9:5, adultery, BNP, british, british national party, democracy, faith, griffen, griffin, islam, killing, murder of jews, nick, nick griffen, nick griffin, peace, question time, questiontime, Quran, racism, racist, refute, response, rights for women, sword verse, treaty of hudaybiyah, verse of the sword, vicious, violence, why is Islam a wicked and vicious faith, wicked, wicked and vicious faith

The crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the single most important event in the Christian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with Christians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.

Without the crucifixion and resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15, ‘King James Version’ translation)

The problem one has, is with the whole point of the crucifixion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it actually happened). What was it all for? What good did it do?

The Death

How does crucifixion kill you? According to the Bible, it seems you can just hang there indefinitely until you feel like “giving up the ghost” (i.e. dying). In actual fact you die of asphyxiation by drowning. Hanging by your arms makes it more and more difficult to expand your chest until you can no longer draw air into your lungs; You very slowly drown as the chest and abdominal muscles tire and fluid collects in the lungs. One of the reasons that the Romans would break the legs of the crucified was to speed up their death – they could not take any weight on their legs and the whole body was hanging by the arms.

( It should also be noted that the Romans probably tied the wrists to the cross, and nailed the hands on to make sure the victim could not pull his hands free. If nails were used with no rope, the weight of the body would simply rip the nails through the hands. It has been mentioned that the nails were usually placed between the Radius and Ulna bones in the forearm, as they could support the weight. Presumably it was both the combination of the ropes and nails that held the victim in place. Interesting that you never see Christian stigmatics showing rope marks on the wrist and nail marks on the fore-arms, and most images of Christ show him supported only by nails through the hand… ).

The four gospels all give different accounts of (among many other things) Jesus’ final words. Yet he would have hardly been able to suck in a lungful of air, let alone make any sort of grand last words.

The Sacrifice

Christians often tell you things such as  “The Lord sent his only son to die for me! How much more personal can you get?” and “he died for our sins” and so on. It seems that some people almost celebrate the awful death of Jesus. Was it really some great selfless sacrifice, for the benefit of a world of sinners?

So the story goes, Jesus died and this somehow absolved all of humanity’s sins, past, present and future. He then spent three days dead (some say he went to the underworld or Hell), came back to his physical body and then floated up to Heaven.

1. How was this a selfless sacrifice? He was marched up the hill by a bunch of heavily armed centurions. Was he really saying things like “No, it’s okay, I want to do this. It’s part of The Plan, you see.”? (It has to be said that many human sacrifices do willingly go to their deaths, sure in the belief that they are doing it for the good of their people, and that their deity actually exists. They don’t usually magically manipulate events to ensure that it happens, however…)
2. Maybe it somehow was a selfless sacrifice. In this case, why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed by the state? Why not just say to his disciples “Well guys, it’s time to say Goodbye.” and throw himself under the nearest chariot? Death is death. Did the manner in which Christ died actually make any difference?
3. It has never been adequately explained how this death freed us all from sin. If the death freed us from the consequences of sin (hell, or eternal oblivion), it is still unclear as to why it had to happen in this particular way. Why didn’t God just sort it all out during Creation?
4. If Jesus is God, then how do we know he really suffered? Is it possible to inflict physical pain on an immortal, omnipotent entity? (see ‘Suffering’ below) Maybe he was just faking it for the crowd…
5. If Jesus is God, then how was it a sacrifice? He only had to spend a few days “dead”, then it was back home to Heaven (and he knew all this beforehand, being omniscient). A few days in the underworld can hardly have been a big deal for an eternal, omnipotent deity, can it? (And of course, being omnipresent as well, he would already have been there all the time anyway).
6. What was he doing during those three days? (Some people say he was preaching to the lost souls in Hell). Why three days anyway? Coming back to life after a couple of weeks would have impressed the locals much more.
7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn’t suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide… (Of course, in Jesus’ case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).
8. Why didn’t he stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice if you spring back to life a few days later, is it (especially if that was your intention right from the start)?
9. If Jesus had it all planned from the start (if you believe Christians when they tell you the Old Testament is full of prophecies about Jesus and his death), then it certainly was not a sacrifice. He must have used his God-Magic to manipulate events and ensure that the crucifixion occurred. This would include making Judas betray him.
10. Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus’ blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely Christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been Saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they’d have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly cooked chicken leg.
11. Why didn’t Jesus let the disciples in on the big secret beforehand?
12. If Judas had not given Jesus a kiss on the cheek, would nobody have known who he was? Had he been preaching, healing and overturning tables with a mask on, so that the only way in which the “great multitude” who came for him could recognise him was through Judas’ kiss? Perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, and only Judas could easily tell them apart? Perhaps the other disciples were all wearing “Jesus Masks” to throw the crowd off the scent? Judas’ part in all this would seem to be quite redundant if Jesus were at all recognisable to his enemies…

We are told that Jesus died for our sins, and his death on the cross saved us all from Hell (or eternal death). So why do we still get all the sermons about sin, heaven and hell? If we are all going to Heaven anyway, why do priests keep pestering us? If our afterlife still depends on living a good christian life then what difference did Jesus’ death make? How did it change anything?

If Jesus has already “paid the price” for our sins, then surely we can now sin as much as we like. If not, why not? Or, if he only paid for Original Sin, that still doesn’t explain why God needed a blood sacrifice to sort out something that could easily have been avoided in the first place. (Remember though, that the first murder in the Bible occurred as a result of God preferring a sacrifice of flesh to a sacrifice of vegetables, for some obscure reason).

If our getting into Heaven depends solely on accepting Christ as our personal Saviour, what about all those people who died without even hearing about him (for whatever reason)? If they get into heaven anyway, then Christ’s death is irrelevant. In which case, why shouldn’t the same apply to everyone? If God had never sent Christ to Earth, everyone would get into Heaven and there would be a few less violent wars in the history books…

The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself, in order to prevent himself sending us all to Hell for committing sins because of the way he made us, and which he knew we were going to do is difficult to accept…

The Suffering

A big thing is made about how much Christ suffered on the cross. While certainly quite nasty, there are much worse ways to die (and the followers of Christ have been quite inventive in thinking up new ones over the last couple of thousand years). If Christ’s suffering was somehow supposed to be for our benefit, wouldn’t we benefit more if his suffering had been greater (e.g. he might have been hung, drawn and quartered; or keelhauled; or water-boarded first)? Or, if he had suffered less (maybe quickly stabbed) would it have made any difference? All the other people who were crucified (and there were certainly plenty – the Romans were very big on crucifixions) would have suffered to a similar degree, if not more. How was Christ’s suffering any different to theirs?

Crucifixion is obviously a particularly horrific way to die. However, being God, Jesus would have known not only the pain involved in crucifixion, but also the pain involved in every other possible manner of dying. God would be perfectly aware of tortures, diseases and injuries that make crucifixion seem like a picnic on a warm summer day. When people go on about how terrible His death was, how much he suffered, and that it allowed Him to experience human suffering, I think “But if he was God, a few hours on the cross would have been utterly insignificant to Him and He would already know exactly what all possible forms of human suffering are like.”

Some people argue that Christ suffered more than just physical pain – he suffered spiritual pain because he was taking all of our sins on himself. Unfortunately, this spiritual suffering didn’t seem to make enough of an impression on the writers of the Gospels for them to note it down… This also begs the question – If He suffered “spiritual pain”, why was it necessary for Him to also suffer physical pain? Couldn’t He have atoned and suffered without being nailed to a stick first? At what point did the spiritual pain begin and end, and why?

Presumably this atonement includes the sins of people in the past and future, as well as at the time of the crucifixion. In that case, why did God have to come to earth at all and be sacrificed (to himself)? Why not just sort it all out right at the time of Creation? What happened to those who died before Christ did? Were they just sort of floating around in limbo, waiting for the time of the Atonement?

So Christ suffered horribly and died (temporarily) for His beliefs? So what?
How many people suffer far, far worse deaths every single year for no good reason whatsoever? (Ironically, sometimes at the hands of Christ’s “followers”). People who are brutally murdered because of the colour of their skin, or their beliefs, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Original Sin

If it simply freed us from (or paid the price for) Original Sin (Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world which was then somehow inherited), does that mean that all those people who died before Jesus didn’t have a chance? Or did his death retro-actively Save them as well? In which case, why did he have to die at all? Why not just remove Original Sin right at the start?

In conclusion, the crucifixion which is the keystone of Christianity appears irrational and hence is wobbly.

(http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crucify.html with slight modifications)

Popularity: 9%

Tags: asphyxiation, crucifiction, crucified, crucifixion, drowing, dubious, jesus is god, jesus was crucified, keystone, problem with christianity, questions, ropes, sacrifice, selfless sacrifice, suffered, suffering, support weight, wobbly keystone