Name of Questioner: Lubna 2013/11/19
An ex-friend of mine who is a Hindu has suddenly turned a vicious critic of Islam. He declares Islam a brutal religion and my pleadings not to disrespect Islam are given a deaf ear. He asked me a couple of questions I have no answer to. Kindly help me answer them. His charges are about beheading, stoning, (verses 9:29, 5:32) and pedophilia, Shia killing Sunni and Sunni killing Shia! He asks: What are you proud of? Pakistan church bombing? Or Nairobi mall killing? Or Syria killings or daily attacks on minorities in Iraq, Iran, Yemen! Or 97% of females in Africa being genitally mutilated so that they won't stray, even passing urine is excruciatingly painful let alone menstruation! Please Google and open your mind and argue with hard liners for your rights! Muslim women in Africa! When was the last time someone won a Nobel Prize for say medicine? Or Physics? Zilch! Who carried out the latest suicide bombing?
Answer:
Salam dear sister,
Thank you for your questions and for contacting Ask About Islam.
In this answer I address the original questioner and so you may pass it on to him.
After Sept 11, 2001 the world media unleashed an aggressive world -wide propaganda against Islam and Muslims. The WTC attacks perpetrated by “Al-Qaeda” (according to the official version) was attributed to Islam and Muslims in general; and the supposition was that all Muslims are in some way guilty of that deed.
Thereafter any aberration of Muslims anywhere was twisted and bloated out of all proportion in the media. Several violent incidents where no Muslim was involved were attributed to “Islamic terrorism.” Add to this the general tendency of the media to pander to the reigning passions of the people by hype and spin. Seeing that there is now a new climate of Islamophobia, they imputed almost every horrific event in the world to “Islamic terror” and went on projecting on the world screen a most horrible picture of Islam.
All the same a horrible event like for instance the torture and genocide (and gendercide) in 1995 by Serbs of about 8000 Bosnian Muslim men of the town of Srebrenica, which was under the UN peace keepers (who conveniently looked away at the critical time) was not even reported. It was David Rhode, a brave journalist of the Christian Science Monitor who unearthed the whole event and brought the tragedy before the world’s attention in 1996. But on Sept 11, time stood still and history took a turn: Western media replaced Communism with Islam as the Enemy of “the civilized world”. And horrendous stories such as the ones cited in the question follow one after another in the media.
Let us now see what your charges are: The harsh punishments you have mentioned are meant only for the hardened criminals who repeatedly commit the crimes. In different penal codes different modes of death penalty are adopted.
In ancient times, sawing, flaying and boiling were used as methods of execution. Shooting by a firing squad, lethal injection, the gas chamber, the electric chair and hanging are some of the methods adopted by modern countries. In Saudi Arabia execution is by beheading. Whatever be the method, the one to be executed is made to taste the pain of death.
In modern times we hear some people arguing for the elimination of the death penalty. In India, the criminal who is convicted of rape is not given the death penalty; but recently after gang rape became a somewhat usual phenomenon in India, thousands of people rallied in the capital city clamoring for the introduction of death penalty for rape too. Those who argue for the elimination of death penalty have more mercy for the criminal than for the victim.
Consider beheading as a method of execution: It is to be done with a very sharp sword at one fell swoop. It causes less pain than hanging or electrocution or shooting, as the person’s life vein at neck is cut asunder in a split second. Other methods of execution are far more harrowing and cause longer suffering before the victim finally succumbs.
Stoning an adulterer or adulteress was practiced by the Jews of ancient time. In the early history of Islam we see such a punishment was meted out to one person; and this was not surprising as the Shari’a had the same origin as the Mosaic Law. But the Quran (which Muslims believe to be the Word of God) does not mention stoning as a method of punishment.
You have referred to the Quranic verse:
{[And] fight against those who - despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] -do not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them] till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war].} (Quran 9:29)
After the first thirteen years of the Prophet’s mission in Makkah, where he was subjected to the most brutal persecution, he and his followers were driven out of their homes and had to seek asylum in Madinah; or else, they would all have been massacred.
In Madinah the Muslims were received very honorably by the people, and eventually the Prophet (peace be upon him) was accepted as a leader of the communities there. Hearing of this, the Makkans feared a campaign from Madinah to revenge on them. The Makkans then got ready to eliminate Muhammad and Islam by marching towards Madinah with a well-equipped army. It was in this context that permission was given the Prophet to fight. It is worthy of note here that the permission was for self-defense, as well as to safeguard the Muslims’ right to live as Muslims. The Muslims were only a band of 313 persons who had very little war equipment by the standards of the time; but in the battle that followed they defeated a well-equipped army of a thousand fighters from Makkah. This was a war between the forces of Truth and Falsehood; and Truth won.
After this battle, the Makkans waged many battles with the Muslims. But in the meantime, the Prophet was able to form a society and a government in Madinah. It was a truly Islamic government which had to make provisions for those who had not become Muslims. Those who did not become Muslims were not compelled to become Muslims; but they had to obey the laws of the government. The Muslims had to pay the zakah, a tax paid to the government; also they had to engage in military service, in case of a defensive battle. The non-Muslims were exempted from all this, but were asked to pay a tax, which was called jizya. This was in lieu of compulsory military service as well as zakah, both of which were incumbent on Muslims.
Later this became a most misunderstood tax, as though a grievous injustice was done to the non-Muslims. But if the non-Muslims were exempted from any tax, it would be unfair to the Muslims, since all were citizens of the same country. The two kinds of taxes were known by two different names; and it was easy for later critics to highlight the name jizya and say that the non-Muslims were treated unfairly.
The rest of your answer will be posted tomorrow insha'Allah.
Salam.
Tiada ulasan :
Catat Ulasan