“True piety does not consist in turning your faces towards the east or the west – but [the] truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends [of] his substance – however much he himself may cherish it – upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage; and is constant in prayer, and renders the purifying dues; and [truly pious are] they who keep their promises whenever they promise, and are patient in misfortune and hardship and in time of peril: it is they that have proved themselves true, and it is they, they who are conscious of God.” (2:177)
If you haven’t read my post titled Tribute to Alia Ansari please click here.
I thought I would start this post off with a verse from the Quran that dezhen had posted on a reply earlier this week. I love the verse and I believe that it is as appropriate as it can get for this particular post. Thank you dezhen!
The following comment inspired this post:
- A believer in the principles of humanism.
- One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
- A classical scholar.
- A student of the liberal arts.
- Humanist A Renaissance scholar devoted to Humanism.
Ali: “Islam is a cult created by a psychopath. It cannot be reformed. It must be eradicated. Islam must be eradicated not because the Quran says Earth is flat or the shooting stars are missiles that Allah fires at the Jinns who climb the heaven to eavesdrop on the conversation of the exalted assembly. These stupid tales could even amuse us. Islam must go because it teaches hate, it orders killing of non-Muslims, it denigrates women and it violates the human rights. Islam must go not because it is false but because it is destructive, because it is dangerous; a threat to peace and security of humankind. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Islamic countries, Islam has become a serious and a real threat to the survival of our civilization. ”
“Let us save the world from its certain destruction. We don’t have to face another world war. We can stop this madness now. We can love each other like members of one family and celebrate our diversity like flowers of one garden. We can build a better world for our children. We can sing the songs of joy together. We can make a difference. Let not a psychopath liar fool you. Do not become an instrument of hate. Muhammad lied. This site is the proof.”
:Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: “I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.” When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels. …
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.”
I’m going to stop with these two as I did not have enough time to research Rushdie and Phares thoroughly. I will say that Rushdie interests me and there is just so much information on him out there that for me to do commentary would require research which I have little time for (as I have typed this hubby has called about 5 times looking for direction on weekend plans, bills do not write themselves out and children have to be picked up from school).
We can throw in Walid Shoebat if you want.
A number of issues came up over at Smart and Final Isis’s post Isis’ Guide to Sensible Islam Posting. Initially, I was taken aback that these people were called Muslim Humanists. I’m not sure about Phares, but every other name that was mentioned was not Muslim. Ali has denounced Islam and through the faithfreedom website still insists that their is a god. Rushdie is a self-proclaimed atheist and Sultana as quoted is neither Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim. Since I am throwing in Shoebat, he’s converted to his wife’s religion (not sure what that is, just remember reading it in a paper).
So, since these people do not call themselves Muslim, I can safely say that they are not Muslim. Second issue brought on by this revelation was whether atheists could be humanists or not, in my opinion. Of course they can and I believe that by most definitions a humanist is a person that does not adhere to the principals of religion or associate to religion.
However, that still doesn’t make these people humanists, in the sense of what I was thinking of when reading “Muslim humanist”. From the definition that I have given you, if we go by 2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans, we have to ask ourselves “are these people interested in the welfare of humans?”. I’m sure that Jihad Watch would like to answer this question for me with a “why, yes, Samaha, they are concerned with the welfare of humans. Why else would they battle the big bad demon of Islam?” But, they are not concerned with ALL humans. In the statements that I have quoted above, Ali has no regards for Muslims unless they denounce Islam, afterall how do you eradicate Islam without eradicating every follower of Islam, every 1.3 billion in case you haven’t heard, without killing them?
How does Sultana’s argument on Al-Jazeera (excerpt above) show her concern for human beings? Does Sultana “responsibly” look for dialogue? While I agree that Sultana made some valid points even thought provoking ones, she also made some slanderous/inciteful ones. Her tone throughout the whole clip that I had seen was arrogant and full of scorn. Did she make them think or did she put them on the offensive, moreso, what was in her heart? Was she looking to create productive, pro-active dialogue or was this a publicity stunt?
I realize that I’m not god, and I don’t really know what was in her heart. I do know one thing though, I know that if I wanted to, I could become rather succesfull by bashing Muslims. It’s what’s hot these days.Heck, I’ve got lots of things to complain about, but am I doing it responsibly? Am I engaging in debate with my fellow Muslims in a productive fashion? That’s a question that I had to ask myself over at Ali’s post Satellite Illogic (so sorry Anna in Portland (was Cairo) for making you suffer another pal/israeli conflict reply to this thread) and decided that I wasn’t going to continue a debate with one commentor on his blog (not directly, anyway).
Still even on that thread I was arguing with anask in regards to Chomsky and Finkelstien the other side of the “humanist” award. Two other views that I don’t agree with. Does it sound too good to be true? Hmmmmmm, I wonder why.
I mean come on! Could it be, could it possibly be that Chomsky and Finkelstein are just sell outs that found a way to fame, glory and book deals? Nah, no way! Right?
Does anyone out there that quotes Chomsky quote this?: “Although he regularly condemns the Israeli government’s actions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Chomsky has recently come under fire  from some pro-Palestinian activists for his advocacy  of the Geneva Accord, which it is argued rules out a one-state solution for Israel-Palestine and negates the Palestinian right of return. Chomsky responds to this by arguing that the right of return, while inalienable, will never be realized, and stating that proposals without significant international backing—such as a one-state solution—are unrealistic (and therefore unethical) goals:
- “I will keep here to advocacy in the serious sense: accompanied by some kind of feasible program of action, free from delusions about “acting on principle” without regard to “realism”—that is, without regard for the fate of suffering people” .”
Here you will find the Criticism of Chomsky wikipedia entry.
Here is Finkelstein’s as well.
I guess that what I am trying to say here is that there are all types out there. Remember that just because a certain “humanist” supports a side that we have found ourselves on, does not mean that that persons views are accurate.