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.

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

A Muslim may find it exasperating that after having shown to a non-Muslim that Islam does not encourage terrorism or suicide bombing but actually condemns it, the non-Muslim insists that Muslims and Muslim scholars are inclined to terrorism and use Islam as an excuse for their violent words and violent acts.

A group called Ihsanic Intelligence have put together a document with the words of famous Muslim thinkers, scholars, monarchs, and so on who all condemn suicide bombing.
This document refutes the idea that Muslims do not condemn suicide bombing or other acts of terrorism. The over whelming majority of Muslims follow Islam correctly in that they are against terrorism.
The document can be downloaded here: Condemnations of Suicide Bombing by Muslims (91)

The document was copied from here.

Related links:
-Audio: Muslims Against Terrorism by Sheikh Slimi (external link)
-(See here for more on Islam’s view on terrorism: http://www.pathofislam.net/peace-and-war/terrorism/no-terrorism-in-islam/.
-A Letter to Osama bin Laden by a Saudi Arabian Scholar (which denounces terrorism) http://www.pathofislam.net/peace-and-war/terrorism/letter-to-osama-bin-laden/
-More posts and articles on Islam’s view of terrorism: http://www.pathofislam.net/terrorism/

——-

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 Path of Islam. All Rights Reserved.