Hollow Boxes

by Admin

I have not, until now, written about Maryam Namazie. I did contemplate it, a distant thought ago, only to say to myself: ”Is she really worth the energy?” What I mean to say is that she is very populist and, in the cold light of day, a rather disappointing imitation of Ayaan Ali Hirsi – someone not too impressive in her own right. Surely one’s time is better spent addressing people of substance and not those devoid of it?

Then, earlier today, someone brought to my attention a rather disappointing post written by Namazie in which she makes an attempt to vilify an Ahmadi speaker she faced recently at the Shari’a debate.  What was he guilty of: requesting that she respects his preference to not shake the hand of a lady. And so, on reading her rather crude comments I felt compelled to write this post.

The reality is that as Namazie commands no depth in her arguments she has to resort to emotional attacks – the Daily Mail in its’ human manifestation if you like. Rather than to actually address the arguments presented to her by the opposing side in the Shari’a debate, she chose to pick an erroneous issue and play the emotional card. Both Ahmadi Muslim women and men choose not to shake the hands of people from the opposite gender. Do the theories of liberality that she holds to so firmly not allow for men and women to choose the degree to which they want to physically engage with others? If not, then where is the liberality? A person of conviction that truly believed in liberality and the freedom of person would never have written such an anti-liberality post. Quite telling, wouldn’t you agree?

A paragraph is about enough on that. Namazie’s post, henceforth, will be completely ignored because the focus should remain on that which is substantive and not emotion and triviality. Let us return, then, to Namazie and her substance, or lack thereof. During the debate she made little reference to any substantive evidence which could possibly lead one to believe that Shari’a law negates human rights. One would expect a serious person, a worthy adversary, to attend such a debate or lecture loaded with references from the primary and secondary sources of Islam that demonstrate that Shari’a law advocates the denial of human rights. In the case of Namazie, however, no such evidence was forwarded.

Rather than present the substantive case against Shari’a law, Namazie chose to point towards contemporary examples of the application of law, what she would term Shari’a law, in Muslim populated states which apparently contravene human rights. Again, for this argument to be substantive she would need to prove that the primary and secondary sources of Islam were the legal basis behind the contravention of the human rights she says were negated. She did not do this. Perhaps this is because any cursory study of both the constitutions and legal procedure in the majority of Muslim populated countries would clearly show that the Shari’a is not the overriding source of the law. Exceptions to this are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran. Further investigation would have led her to discover that in Egypt the constitutional clause which places Shari’a as the primary source of the law has been tested in Egyptian courts and failed. It is not the source of law in practice. She would also have found that the Saudi application of Shari’a law is not in line with the traditional maxims and precedent’s of Shari’a law proper. Furthermore, that the Saudi state is a Wahhabi / Salafist state which is the only one of its kind; hardly representative. Lastly, she should have already know that Iran follows the jurisprudence of the Shi’a Ja’fari interpretation of Islamic law which cannot fundamentally be confused with the Sunni interpretation – i.e., the majority.

To conclude, the problem I have with Namazie is not simply that her lack of proof offends me, but that it is obvious she cannot even be bothered to take the time to substantiate her arguments with fact.

She would do well to substantiate her position with evidence and to stop raising the fact that she is a woman and an apostate – something which is of no concern to the argument or to anyone partaking in it. On completion of this post I am still left asking myself: ”Is she really worth the energy,” admittedly, probably not!

About these ads

38 thoughts on “Hollow Boxes

  1. You are right Ibne Khalid, Hudur Aqdas (ayyadahu Allah ta’ala bi-nasrihi al-’aziz) in his Friday Sermon on December 16th 2011 speaking on the topic of Holy Quran: the source of guidance and salvation, said,

    (Summary translation from Alislam) Effort to adopt every virtue mentioned in the Qur’an would create a pure society which Islam wants to establish and would also silence those who raise objections at Islam day in and day out. Here [in UK], two women are renowned to raise excessive objections against Islamic laws in their lectures. Through the efforts of Khuddamul Ahmadiyya UK a debate was held with them at UCL (University College London). The debate was organised by the university. The two ladies, as is their way, presented excessive objections against Islam at the debate. Two of our Khuddam, a student of Jamia who is of Pakistani origin and the other a new convert of English origin responded to them in a positive and reasoned way in light of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an which is the true teaching of Islam. It is understood that this left them indignant and even their supporters expressed regret at their excessive objections. Thus the teachings of Islam were triumphant through young Ahmadi men. We should try and understand the teachings of the Qur’an and Islam. This would make our homes paradisiacal and will enable us to fulfil our dues of Tabligh in society. (Summary translation from http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2011-12-16.html#summary-tab)

    I am overwhelmed with emotion when I think that Huzur Aqdas(atba) considered MKA UK efforts worthy and said “teachings of Islam were triumphant through young Ahmadi men”
    What else do we need – to serve Islam and that the rightly appointed Khalifa is pleased with our efforts.


    Please go to 27:00 for mention of the debate.

  2. Anybody heard Huzur’s Friday Sermon yesterday. Huzur made mention of this debate at UCL. Very comments.

  3. Steve, no problem at all and thank you for your honest reply. Very, very few people, and next to none today, from Western academic circles argue that the Prophet was a warlord (perhaps 99% argue that he was not). This is an Orientalist myth deeply seated in a mixture of fabricated evidence and records found in the writings of some clergymen from the Byzantine Empire (i.e., there is a context). Western scholars, many of whom are not Muslim and are British or American, have spoken very highly of Muhammad (saw). They may not have similar praise for SOME of the despotic Muslim Ruling elite which followed over the following centuries, but even in those instances it is shown that their actions were opposed to the actions of the Prophet. These Western scholars I am talking of are the people who have spent many years studying world history and Islamic history; people who have mastered languages both modern and ancient in the quest of knowing more about what actually happened in history and not what has become part of popular belief.

    Putting aside the sensitivities of the Muslims and arguments of those opposed to Islam, I feel it best to turn to other honest scholars who are motivated by a desire to increase their knowledge and nothing more. There are lots of books and I would be happy to list some. These books do not say that the history of Muslim nations is perfect and free from transgression, but do show a far more levelled image, based on facts, than the a google search or flick through the Daily Mail would show.

  4. You’re quite right, I seem to have derailed this thread, which was not my intent.
    My apologies.
    You must be aware that I am far from the first person to see The Prophet as a warlord, and I’m sure that your Google skills are at least equal to my own. No one has the right not to be offended
    That said, I’m the guest here and again, I offer my apologies.

  5. Steve, again, you have come to a page which is discussing a debate in which the motion was that the ”Shari’a Negates HR.” If you want me to open up a page about ”Does God Exist” then I will happily do so. Regarding the Shari’a, it is your argument that it does negate HR and so, as an Atheist, you must look at the bare bones of Shari’a law and provide ample evidence which supports your position. If Shari’a does indeed negate HR, then you need not discuss whether or not it is or is not a God made law as it should fall down on HR issues either way. Put simply, argue for or against the motion, but please do not become pre-occupied with issues which are quite separate to the subject.

    Let’s say, for example, that the motion is ”Atheism Negates Human Rights” and then rather than focusing on the actual documented and scholarly principles and maxims which underpin Atheism I simply said that Atheism is proven wrong by the example of Stalin, you would no doubt feel, rightly so, that I was not being fair. As an Atheist you should hold yourself as being accountable for what you understand Atheism to be and not the actions of any man or state. Similarly, do not equate Shari’a law to Iran or Saudi Arabia, but fairly appraise what Shari’a Law actually promotes.

    We do not criticise democracy because it has given birth to Governments which have dropped bombs like in Hiroshima, partaken in torture / rendition, removed the rule of law and basic HRs (Guantanamo Bay), corrupted financial systems to the level that children starve to death as a result, or embarked upon selective and brutal wars which benefit their financial and strategic interests.

    If you want to create a truly peaceful world, you must first evolve the discussion and avoid, at all costs, making no differentiation between the individual and the collective. And many Atheists certainly will not ever progress, even to the nth degree, in eradicating unethical practices, be they by Muslims or anyone else, if the rhetoric is abusive and devoid of ethical boundaries itself – that is hypocrisy. Don’t call the dearest person to the person in front of you a warlord if you cannot substantiate that statement.

    And finally, yes, we are all human and we all make mistakes. I do not personally begin from the starting point that I am right and everyone else is wrong. I will not, however, be swayed away from my position unless I am convinced by reasoned and evidenced argument.

  6. “See, people don’t know the facts and come with points which have no weight as Mr. Steve Vowles. The funny things is that when things happen to people and they have no clue how that happened, no explanation, they call it a miracle, a wonder! ”

    Still no evidence for god’s existence.
    Still no evidence for miracles.

    And I try to avoid the Argument from Ignorance – I often fail, but I am human.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  7. “If, however, you prefer to think aliens visited us and taught us everything, by all means do so.”

    I have too much respect for humanity to think that we have been given science and technology by aliens (or gods). It’s just more probable that, in the absence of any other explanation, we can thank aliens rather than gods. Of course the overwhelming probability is that we can thank other members of our own species.

    “Something still created the aliens.”

    Well spotted!
    Now you need to apply the problem of infinite regression to the existence of god.

  8. Assalamo-Alaikum-Warahmatullah-Wabarakatahu,

    I hope everyone of you is fine by the grace and eternal mercy of Allah (swt) the Almighty.

    See, people don’t know the facts and come with points which have no weight as Mr. Steve Vowles. The funny things is that when things happen to people and they have no clue how that happened, no explanation, they call it a miracle, a wonder!

    Mr. Steve Vowles,

    you cannot see God, he is sparkling white in complexion. The Universe is expanding and this has been foretold in the Holy Qur’an 1400 + years ago.

    “wassama’ abanainaha beaeyhdinwa Inna la musi’un”

    “And we have built the heavens with Our own hands, and verily, we have vast powers.” (Al-Dhariyyat: 48)

    Musi’un also means “we go on expanding”

    Now how come that a warlord would know about the expansion of the Universe?

    There are many signs in the Holy Qur’an proving the existence of God. This was one. You want more? Let me know. I will give you more proofs.

  9. The Qur’an does speak of genetic engineering, the atom, and alien life.

    If, however, you prefer to think aliens visited us and taught us everything, by all means do so.

    Something still created the aliens.

  10. Just because you say he was a warlord, doesn’t mean much. That is an allegation. For it to be proven, you need facts. Once you provide facts, I will be happy to respond.

    Please, provide authentic facts to back up your assertions, and do not be like Maryam and Anne-Marie who made sure not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

  11. And here is a video that illustrates the point made about divine revelation and its relation to science:

  12. One last point: What I wrote previously by no means signifies that God does not inspire human beings to make great discoveries and solve complex problems. He DOES. Many a scientist or mathematician will tell the story of how they tried in vain to find a solution to the problem/s they were pondering over, only to be given a sudden flash of inspiration, or a vision, or a dream in which was the answer. To many of them, this was personal proof of God. However, to those not experiencing what they had experienced, it is not necessarily proof of God’s existence.

    By contrast, revelations on the future serve the purpose of giving proof to even those who did not have such a divine experience.

  13. Furthermore, anyone receiving information on how to make new antibiotics, or lightning conductors will not be doing anything that will be understood to be proof of God’s existence. These are the kind of inventions that human beings come up with as a species. There is nothing supernatural about that. No one would believe an inventor who says his idea came from God. And that’s no doubt why God does not use this method to convince anyone of His existence.

    On the other hand, if someone predicts when a person is going to invent a lightning conductor, and then goes on to correctly predict another 50 such future events, and says: “This was revealed to me by God,” THEN we would have to pause and think about it seriously, because actually seeing into the future is NOT something human beings can do as a species.

  14. You say that because you do not know the context in which the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) made these predictions.

    The invention of the aeroplane was predicted as one of the signs whereby people could recognise the imminence of the appearance of the Messiah who would bring people back into living communion with God. Dozens of such predictions were made and they came true during the same period.

    We of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are this Messiah’s followers, and we are experiencing communion with God, where God IS giving us beneficial knowledge regarding the betterment of our physical bodies, mind and souls. He warns of impending dangers and announces good news of pleasant things about to reach us.

    So, these prophecies in such minute detail (and I have yet to see anything remotely approaching them in their benefit to mankind in either the I-Ching or Nostradamus’ musings) were and are extremely beneficial for humanity. Through following the Messiah’s teachings, people can once again speak to God and be spoken back to.

    And it is open for you to put to the test, if you are willing. For the same God has said time and time again that all will live on after death and will be held to account for whatever they have done on earth. So, perhaps this is YOUR chance now to establish contact with God and know how to prepare yourself for the life after death that none can escape.

    If you want to learn more about this, you may send a private message to the moderator of this blog.

  15. You have made the statement that the Prophet (saw) was a warlord. The premise is, therefore, for you to prove and then me to disprove. Provide a referenced substance behind your assumption and then I would be happy to try my best to disprove you.

  16. And the I Ching or Nostradamus can produce equally (un)impressive prophecies.
    How about something actually unambiguous and useful? If god had told us how to manufacture antibiotics or the dangers of asbestos mining or how to design a lightning conductor or any number of other things then perhaps I’d be impressed. But even then, assuming that this knowledge came from an alien civilization would more easily satisfy William of Ockham than any invisible sky fairy who, as you admit, is indistinguishable from psychosis.

  17. So The Prophet was not a medieval warlord?
    “Secular law, by contrast, is generally arrived at by the consent of the people,
    not imposed at the whim of medieval warlords and at least stands a chance of
    upholding human freedom and dignity. And when it fails, we have none to blame but ourselves.
    Quotemine much?

  18. @Steve:
    While it is true that the actual debate had nothing to do with the existence of God – all it was about was: is Shari’ah Law against Human Rights or not? – and that can be (and was) debated without any reference to God, I however agree with you that the VALIDITY of and wisdom underlying the injunctions of the Shari’ah can only be accepted with the knowledge that God exists. This is a topic entirely different to that of the debate at UCL.

    For God – a Being belonging to different dimensions to ours, and Who is unfathomable to human beings – to be able to prove His own existence, the option of a visual manifestation of Himself would not be there. To believe that we could ever see God with our physical eyes would be like believing we could feel the perfume of a rose, or hear the taste of an apple, or smell the sound of music.

    The only rational option for God would be for Him to communicate with human beings. And He would have to tell them something convincing, otherwise they would not believe He was actually there.

    Let us say a person is locked inside your room, you cannot see him nor can you enter. He talks to you from behind your door. You may of course think it is an illusion or a recording. So you ask him a question; such as “Describe such and such objects on my desk”. If he answers correctly, you will then have a measure of satisfaction that there is indeed someone inside. If he then tells you that he is now going to push a sheet of paper with his name under the door for you to see, and thereupon the sheet of paper does appear as he said, your doubts will completely disappear as to his existence. You may not yet fully comprehend his identity and nature, but you are at least sure that he is there.

    All the while, you will have been unable to see him. Yet, you will have proof that he is present.

    It is very much the same with God, Who cannot be seen by the human eye. He communicates with any human being of His choice. He gives them messages. How will they know it is not a psychotic experience? How will they know He is really there? To dispel their doubts, God tells them something about events that will occur in the future, something that no human being can do. When such predictions come true time after time, the recipients of such messages can only conclude that God is real and He exists.

    Sometimes, the messages are for the near future, and these are meant to dispel the doubts of people living at that particular time. At other times, the messages speak of events in a more distant future, and these will turn out to be so many proofs of God’s existence for people of the future who had preserved such messages from their forefathers. Occasionally, the messages predict events to take place in a very distant future, perhaps several hundred or even thousands of years in the future. The people of those times will find them to be proofs of God’s existence.

    One of the most amazing of such prophecies that I have ever found is the one made by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) regarding a means of transport of our modern times, the era when the Messiah of Islam was meant to appear. Such prophecies are often couched in metaphorical language and parables, but they are easily decipherable:

    He likened it to a “donkey”, which would not be a real donkey, because:

    1. It would have no hair on its body, but would be shiny like the moon
    2. It would not eat herbage but would instead consume fire
    3. It would not be of a normal size but would be gigantic
    4. It would not carry only one or two riders, but great numbers of passengers
    5. There would be several openings in its flanks
    6. It would contain many lamps
    7. There would be a light on its “forehead” which, at a distance, would ressemble the full moon
    8. Its “ears” would measure 40 cubits from tip to tip
    9. Its shadow would cover a large party of people
    10. It would be able to travel from the East to the West in one “jump”
    11. It would announce its departure to its passengers

    These are just some of the amazing details on a modern form of transport given by an illiterate Prophet of 7th Century Arabia – who, let us not forget, had not even seen a bicycle – and who said that it was God Who had told him these things.

    I once told a class of 5-year-olds that I would tell them a charade, and they should guess what I meant. When I told them only a few of the 11 prophecies mentioned above, hands went up and they began to shout:

    “It’s an AEROPLANE!”

    A prophecy so clear that even 5-year-olds understand it immediately.

    So, the question is:

    Did the Prophet have such superhuman powers as to be able to describe with that degree of accuracy aeroplanes to be invented 1200 years after him?

    Or

    Was it what he said, i.e. that as a human being he could never know such things and that it was God Who had revealed them to him?

    I leave it to you to decide.

  19. Aside from your ridiculous projection, you miss the point. Maryam and Anne-Marie did not argue against Shariah law, they argued against corrupted regimes. Your assertion that “Shariah” is based on medivel warlords is no different than the taliban argument that secularism is based on atheist communism that played a significant part in two World Wars.

    How are you missing this obvious misapplication of blame?

  20. “Secular law, by contrast, is generally arrived at by the consent of the people,
    not imposed at the whim of medieval warlords and at least stands a chance of
    upholding human freedom and dignity.”

    Project much?

  21. Shari’a law supports a pluralistic form of governance which in no way imposes Islamic law upon non-Muslims – that is a maxim of Shari’a law (There is no Compulsion in Religion). The Qur’an supports Governance which is arrived at by the people (majority). Medieval warlords (Please substantiate with fact), Violates HR (please substantiate with fact). The mirrors comment refers to the fact that whenever an Atheist has argued this issue with me they do not present straight forward responses, but try to divert the subject to something else – usually abstract or emotional.

  22. Steve, I think you’re missing the point here. We are not debating about enforcing Shariah law on anyone, it cannot be enforced and Islam does not permit anyone to force it upon those who do not want it.

    This misunderstanding arises from ignorance of what Shariah actually is. Shariah law is not something to be enforced necessarily, it is something that you follow yourself, in your personal lives. It means to live your life according to Islamic principles from the Qur’an and the sayings of the Holy Prophet of Islam.

    In fact, Islam promotes a secular state more than anything, where people have the say and the power over who governs them. The only thing is that a state must be governed with justice above all.
    There is evidence in the Prophet’s life when he was appointed the leader of the society of Medina which had Jews, Muslims and Pagans living there. He did not enforce any law upon anyone, rather he would ask people what law they want to be judged with. When a Jew would break a law, he would be asked which law do you want to be judged with, the Jewish law, Muslim law or secular. Jews were allowed to follow their law, Muslims theirs and Pagans or others could follow the common civil secular law. Therefore our Prophet has set an example of how a state should be governed. It can’t be enforced and those extremist clerics trying to enforce it are wrong and are actually going against the Islamic teaching. The people decide which law they want.

    Those who don’t believe in God will be judged by whichever law they want. They can go for the secular laws of the country or can even choose to go for the Muslim Shariah law. That is what is taught by Islam, a secular, democratic state run by the people.

    In this country there is no need for Shariah law to be enforced, certainly not by Muslims as Muslims can live in peace and practice their religion and do as they feel. Muslims are actually instructed to obey and follow the laws of the land as long as it does not interfere with their religious practices. Here, in Britain Muslims have this freedom so there is no need to bring Shariah law as such in this country.

  23. Hi Steve

    I appreciate the question about the existence of God and I understand where you are coming from, however the belief in God is a very complex and very important subject. Whether God exists or not is not a reason (or excuse) to NOT engage in a discussion of whether the Sharia negates human rights…that discussion can still take place whether God exists or not. I hope you can see that. By avoiding the subject altogether suggests that the so called ‘rational’ people of the world are unable to provide a rational response to Sharia.

    In respect to God, there are plenty of examples and evidence of the existence of God (see this book http://www.alislam.org/library/books/OurGod.pdf). However the Promised Messiah (as) has suggested that all these arguments for the existence of God will only take you to a certain stage i.e. the maximum you would be able to say is “there should be a God”, however the aim of man is to be convinced that “there IS a God”…that my friend can only happen through your personal experience of God. In the Quran, God has stated that if you call on Him, He will answer you. I don’t think many Atheist can seriously confirm they have made a real effort to find God by calling on Him, and believe me it’s not just about saying a prayer once or twice to see its acceptance. It is essential that you raise your standard of morals in the treatment of the people and creatures in the world and constantly identify your weaknesses and work on them, but then be consistent in calling on Him for guidance or whatever prayer you wish. I’m sure others with greater experiences of God can give better examples of how to find God but you will recognise God through the acceptance of prayer or through such dreams that are so powerful that they leave no doubt as to their source. That’s the reason I believe in God, because of my personal experience, more so than anything else.

    Take care

  24. Where did I equate questions about god’s existence with the debate about Shariah? However, without proof of god’s existence then Shariah’s very foundations are set on quicksand and whether or no it violates human rights is greatly simplified.
    No god – Shariah’s ‘god given’ precepts are worthless, and any attempt to enforce them on a non believer is a violation of their human rights.
    Secular law, by contrast, is generally arrived at by the consent of the people,
    not imposed at the whim of medieval warlords and at least stands a chance of
    upholding human freedom and dignity. And when it fails, we have none to blame
    but ourselves.

  25. I agree. The problem with the Atheist argument on the Shari’a, particularly with Namazie, is that they deal in shadows and mirrors too much. They should stop avoiding the issue at hand and actually deal with it. A continuance in their avoidance of the core issue means they are either wrong or uneducated.

  26. A debate about God’s existence is indeed an important discussion. But to equate that with an argument about whether Shariah violates human rights is comparing apples to oranges. Whether Shariah violates human rights or not is irrelevant to whether God exists. Whether God exists is irrelevant to whether Shariah violates human rights.

    The debate in question was whether Shariah violates human rights. In that debate, Maryam and Anne-Marie did not cite a single verse of the Qur’an or hadith. If you cannot see the terrible argumentation there, then this discussion is pointless.

  27. I do agree with you in principle. By that I mean that I agree that for things to flourish there must be a societal shift towards Tawhid and away from worldliness. I also agree that Ahmadis must continue to engage in all spheres of life and try to promote the true, beautiful, teachings of Islam through their deeds and words.

    What I would disagree with is that you appear to have inferred that we do not have strong representation today. Perhaps you have this perception, as I am sure many do, because not enough has been done to advertise people’s past and continuing achievements. But, then again, a lack of advertisement is in part because people are often reluctant to share their achievements out of humility. I can, however, assure you that I know of countless Ahmadis who are very important members of the UN, financial institutions, Universities, the legal world, military forces, etc. The media is a tough nut to crack, but that is because it is a very difficult environment for a Muslim of conviction to succeed in – not to suggest it is impossible. The media of today appears to acknowledge few boundaries in the lengths it goes in exploiting people, or in not exploiting them, depending on where one’s allegiances rest.

    I think that people like Qasim Rashid have done a marvelous job in engaging with the media while maintaining their conviction. It sounds like a simple thing, but success so often robs man of his conviction and dignity, particularly today. I hope and pray that more Ahmadis, regardless of their age or gender, will achieve a similar impact.

  28. This is the comment I left on her blog.
    —-
    I just listened to your portion of the debate on video. It would have been helpful if you cited to the Qur’an in your debate, as you do in this above blog post. THAT would have been a logical argument.

    To be sure, the questions you bring up in this blog post are legitimate questions, so don’t think I am dismissing your argument. What I am dismissing, is the disingenuous tactic you used in the live debate. That is, you did not cite the Qur’an, but cited corrupted nations who claim to be following the Qur’an. If you can’t see the difference between the two, then this discussion is quite pointless.

    I mean don’t you find it incredible that you bashed Shariah Law without citing a single verse of the Qur’an? Not a single hadith either! Incredible!

    The fact that you admit this has nothing to do with Muslims being more devout, and everything to do with a politicalization of Islam is quite telling. Your issue, obviously, should be with th politicalization of Islam, not with Islam itself. By your logic, therefore, if Muslims were devout, then the corruption would not be happening. We Agree!

    All you did in the video was complain about how women and minorities are mistreated in so called Muslim nations. Great, welcome to the club. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been condemning these acts for 120 years, long before your “enlightenment” 3 years ago when you started your anti-shariah campaign.

    The difference is that Ahmadi Muslims put the blame where it lies, on the individuals committing the atrocities. We don’t give the abusers an excuse. Maybe you should consider doing the same – blame the individual, not the excuse they use. THAT is how you solve the problem. Do you blame the car or the drunk driver?

    All you demonstrated is that nations are corrupt, just like every nation in the world. You think this economic crisis is happening because people were righteous? You think no atheists were involved there? Laughable.

    Perhaps in the next debate against Mr. Khan and Mr. Butterworth, you can bring up Qur’anic verses and hadith to support your issues against Shariah Law. In the meantime, thank you for debating, however, as all you proved yet again is that not a single valid argument exists to denounce Islam.. God bless.

  29. You write:
    “cannot even be bothered to take the time to substantiate her arguments with fact.”

    And:
    “would do well to substantiate her position with evidence”

    Interesting that you ask for facts and evidence. Care to provide some about the existence of Allah, or any god for that matter?

  30. May Allah forgive her for her self-regulated blindness, and allow her to see that she in fact, is violating human rights by restricting religious freedom and free exercise thereof.

  31. Assalamo-Alaikum-Warahmataullah-Wabarakatahu,

    I think it is worth to discuss and mention these kind of women. It is a general problem of mankind and you will find these kind of “little things” in our Jama’at as well. I’m sure that alot of Ahmadis are not able to explain why it is forbidden to shake hands with the opposite gender. I caught myself the other day shaking hands with an official from the City Hall who is a woman. I could not explain, but a German who converted to the Muslim Ahmadiyyat Jama’at six years ago could so. I was ashamed and I felt guilty for not knowing what a Ahmadi Muslim should know.

    This happens when we forget our aim. No one is to blame, but me. When we have fallen in deep sleep, overwhelmed by the Dajjal. It gets harder when there is no help, guidance. Allah will surely give guidance to those who are in search for it, but it becomes a hard task when you have to swim against a wave which is your environment. When people have forgotten what mankinds real aim is. It is the eduaction we get taught that the world is everything. I’m reading a book of Massih-e-Moud at the moment. Massih-e-Moud had no interest in this world. He followed his fathers commandments only to gain Allah’s pleasure. I’m not saying that we should forget the world completely, but bring such people like Maryam Namazie closer to the real teachings of Islam.

    I’m sure that she never got in contact with the beautiful teachings of Islam. Without blaming or disrespecting anyone. That is our fail. Allah is doing our work. What have we done – excluding the few who have really done an outstading job. Do we have any politician like Chaudry Muhammad Zafrullah Khan or do we have another Abdus Salam? It is not enough to propagate Islam through Money and Books. We need people in the political sector, jounalistic sector, people with their own newspaper, spreading the truth about the world instead of spreading rumors and false informations and so creating havoc around the world. We need representers in the UN. People with great worldly and religious education. Where are they? It is not enough to become Doctors, physicist, bioligist etc.

    We need more people like Lord Ahmad (Host of Faith Matters). We have to step out. If we won’t do, others will do.

  32. I aven’t heard anything on her blog as a responce to how the debate went. Has anyone else heard anything? That in itself shows she was left speechless loooool

  33. Very well written, and completely true. I was there at the debate myself and believe me, Ms. Namazie had no substance in her arguments and kept reiterating the same statements. She was baffled by the arguments presented on our side and had no tactic other than to resort to emotions, she was getting very loud and defensive in her speech, which was completely unprofessional. I’m really glad this debate took place, but I don’t think she is worth any more energy!

  34. An excellent post again-definitely hit the nail on the head. In her post, she refers to me as the student who alerted her to Ayyaz’s religious sensibilities, so I thought I should make a comment on her blog to give the other side of the coin, so to speak-please find below.

    “Dear Maryam,

    I am the student from the “Ahmadiyya Youth Association” who came to you prior to your talk and mentioned the whole hand-shaking issue. I thought perhaps my post on here would provide an alternate insight.

    When I mentioned to you that Ayyaz would not shake hands with women, I specifically said that it was due to religious reasons-not cultural reasons. He is from a Pakistani culture and there are very many Pakistani men who would happily shake your hand.

    The reason it is within the religion of Islam for a man not to shake a woman’s hand-and for a woman not to shake a man’s hand (note the equality!), is because physical contact between the sexes is discouraged with anyone with whom you are not related to, or is not your spouse. It is, moreover, not a question of getting “aroused by a handshake” (which I am sure you will reply with), but it is rather a case of religious etiquette and in actual fact, respect for the other person. According to Islam, a thing of value is not to be accessed by all and sundry, rather its value is maintained and enhanced by its rarity. In that vein, physical contact between unrelated men and women who are not spouses is seen as de-valuing those legitimate instances of physical contact, eg: between the spouses.

    It is not disrespect to the woman that is intended; as mentioned above, Muslim women are also not enjoined to shake the hands of [unrelated (non-mahram)] men. Your argument that hand-shaking is a part of your lifestyle and therefore you have every right to impose your lifestyle on him, unfortunately, falls down when we realise that the imposition of forcing him to shake hands (when it had been kindly requested of you not to) is far greater than the imposition upon you of not shaking his hand, as the former is the case of an imposition by an external party to do an active action ie: being forced to actively shake hands, while the latter is a self-imposed passive action, ie: witholding from an action.

    That you specifically, after being politely alerted to his religious sensibilities, decided to place him in an awkward situation does not redound well upon yourself. That you further decided to publish your intolerance towards other people’s religious sensibilities upon your blog is further damning.”

Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s