:06 AM 3/22/06

DawoudKringle@aol.com To:

jonathanzap@hotmail.com

Subject:

What you asked for.

Peace;

Thank you for the last email, and its polite and well deserved admonishments. You got me – you got me good. I was being sarcastic. The “hysteria” you sensed in my last email was sarcasm – pure and simple. I stand corrected: my manners fell to the wayside, and I behaved inappropriately. I hope you will forgive me.

However, I did, in no uncertain terms, sense the hysteria in the tones of Sean’s writings; and denounce him as a hate monger. While his tone was mostly quiet, the insane fury smoldering behind his words are obvious to anyone – and I can’t understand how someone could not see this. I stand by this, and will not be swayed.

I wanted to try a different approach to argument: exposing you to the side of Islam that you clearly have no experience of; the mystical side, the spiritual element. And I wanted to apply this to not so much your intellect – which has limits (intellect itself: I did not imply that you lacked intelligence. Quite the antithesis!), but directly to your heart. I use this approach in the prisons; and it works. I will not abandon showing it to you. You mentioned that all religions have their “gems”, and you’re right. However, you seemingly ignored what I showed you (seemingly: I hope I’m wrong). You made little comment, or criticism of those emails wherein I shared some of the “gems” of Islam. I wonder what you truly make of the Gems of Sufism / Islam?

” I agree with Sean that you repeatedly state how easily you could debunk his assertions and quotations. which begs the question: why don’t you?” You got me again. I am a bit reluctant to offer tafsir (commentary) on Qur’an, along with an explanation because you have refused to believe that I can / would provide anything resembling an accurate explanation of what the original Arabic says. You rejected my corrections of N.J. Dawood’s translation – and then admitted you had no understanding of Arabic by which to make this determination, and shrugged it off with a flimsy claim that these things cannot be accurately determined – and then accepted without question the N.J. Dawood translation that the hate mongers find so useful. What am I to think?

You asked for refutation and commentary on the website. A few random examples:

” The sole arbitrator on the subject, Muhammad, said in his Qur’an that a Muslim who does not leave his home to fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause ceases to be a Muslim. Allah calls them “hypocrites” in the 9^{th surah and orders good Jihadist Muslims to kill them in the 4th, so that he can personally attend to their torture in hell. As for reform, Islam’s lone prophet said, “Islam cannot change.” And in that regard, he was a prophet. The religion is just as deceitful, destructive, and deadly as it was when Muhammad was inventing it in a milieu of mass murders, piracy, rape, plunder and slavery. Reforming Islam is akin to thwarting Nazism by asking Hitler to edit the most deceitful, destructive, and deadly passages out of Mein Kampf.”} .” ^{Here’s what’s wrong with this paragraph:}

– 1. Muhammad was not the author of the Qur’an.

– 2. the 9th sura, Surat-at-Taubah (Repentance) begins by addressing a specific historical event: a cease of hostilities during the war against the Muslims (which the Muslims did not start – and which was engaged after 10 years of persecution, including slaughter, confiscation of property, and exile; during which time the Muslims took no act of vengeance . What explanation does Sean have for this?). It makes clear the fact that fighting is permissible only in cases of aggression against the Muslims: and amnesty for the pagans who wish it. Verse 6 mandates that asylum should be given to any pagan who asks for it. And “pagan” is translated form the word “mushrik”: which is NOT the same as “Kuffaar”. Non-Muslims often erroneously use the words interchangeably and translate them both as “infidel”, for reasons I leave to your imagination.

- 3. 9:39 says that those who do not engage in “Tanfiru” will be punished. “Tanfiru describes the act of moving forward against suffering for the purpose of spiritual and moral progress.The word also shares grammatical roots with “Aghstafir”: forgiveness, which puts a different spin on things.

– 4. The Arabic word for Hypocrite, “Munafikuun” occurs six times in the 9th sura: not a single time does it directly refer to people who refuse to fight. The word hypocrisy is mentioned in reference to the acts of the munaffikuun, and also to the Bedoin Arabs; about whom ironically, the Qur’an has little good to say.

– 5. Nowhere in Sura 4 “Surat an-Nisaa” (Women) does the command to kill hypocrites appear.

- 6. Sean’s term ” Good Jihadist Muslim ” does not exist in the Arabic language, and does not appear in the Qur’an.

- 7. ” Islam’s lone prophet “. Yet another error. Islam has many Prophets: these include but are not limited to Noah, Moses, Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Some unknown prophets are alluded to in cryptic language (and some Islamic scholars believe these may include Krishna, Buddha, Lao Szu, etc.) All of them, without exception, are spoken of in reverential tones in the Qur’an.

– 8. ” Deceitful”, “destructive”, “deadly”, “mass murders”, “piracy”, “rape”, “plunder”,”slavery “. More propagandist rhetoric. More hysteria.

You will note that I will not attempt to disprove any of the crimes committed by the Zindiq (heretics) among the Muslims. Nor will I apologize for them, or make light of them. I ask only that you consider the refutation of their association with Islam.

” The overwhelming majority of the Islamic literature printed by the Saudi government and distributed in American mosques and Islamic schools is uncivilized, hateful, violent, and treasonous. But then they claimed, without evidence or reason, that such materials were reflective of Wahhabi extremism, and were therefore a corruption of Islam.”. Without evidence or reason??? Permit me to reiterate with words that I wrote, and made public to Muslim readers, and which I got from studying Islamic history sources:

“,,, the founders of the Wahabbi sect of Islam, which dominates Arabia, as well as the founder of the Saudi clan. They and their leader, Ahmed Aziz Saud, were, around 200 years ago, not only found guilty of sedition and treason against the Khalifite, but were found to be themselves Zindiq (extreme heretics) by the Hanifi scholars of the time. Unfortunately, they succeeded in assuming power: without abandoning their hearses – which are easily provable by anyone with elementary knowledge of Islam.”

.” My writings, and the sources I used to arrive at this conclusion, are well known in many circles in the Islamic community – and almost completely unknown outside of it. Granted: the Wahabbis don’t want this widely circulated; and a great number of Muslims are, in fact, contaminated by Wahabbism. But they are facts.

Sean mentions .” ^{Ibn Ishaq ‘s “Sirat Rasull Allah” (the correct title of the book). Sean is correct that it is among the earliest biographies, and was written less than 150 years after Muhammad’s death. It survives in the later editions of Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari . Several siras predate Ibn Ishaq’s work, including: al-Waqidi , Zubayr ibn al-Awwam (d.712 c.e). and whom Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and at-Tabari are all said to have used as a source, Uthman ibn Affan (d. 725 AH) and Wahb ibn Munabbih (d. 730 AH). There are some differences between these versions; and Sean did not mention which version he used – nor what translation (I need not point out that some translations are, shall we say, questionable). And even with these different versions, some of the accounts are of questionable authenticity. The means by which this is determined is called “Isnad”: and is still being argued about to this day – the details of which would take hours for me to write. Against the background of Islamic scholarship, Sean lacks the capacity and objectivity to make these determinations, and his views of the Prophet’s biography are unacceptable and irrelevant. Sean quoted the Qur’an 5:33 thus:}

” The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and perpetrate mischief [reject Islam or oppose its goals] in the land, is to murder them, to hang them, to mutilate them, or banish them. Such is their disgrace. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”"

The actual verse is rendered into English like this:

” The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption through the land is death or crucifixion, or the cutting off of their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land, based upon the severity of their offense. This will be their humiliation in this world, and in the hereafter they will have a grievous punishment ”

Verse 34 continues,,, ” except those who repent before you apprehend them; in this case, know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful ”

You’ll notice the following facts:

– 1. “Corruption” is translated from “fasaadan”; which describes a category of all manner of violent crime, such as murder, robbery, rape, arson, etc. The phrase ” reject Islam or oppose its goals” is a flimsy attempt to append words to the Qur’an that are not there.

- 2. The word “fasaadan” is also applicable to sedition or treason: and it is not uncommon for the nations on earth to punish sedition and treason with death. Like it or not, the Muslims were at the time a nation.

– 3. The Arabic word for “hanging”, “qal’aai” does not appear in the verse.

- 4. The specific Arabic word for “murder” (as opposed to murder as part of a category which we find in firasaadan), “Lataq”, does not appear in this verse.

- 5. The Arabic word for “mutilate”, “Tratab” does not appear in this verse.

(In other words, the clearly altered translation Sean sites does not in any way resemble the original verse.)

– 6. The ” cutting off of their hands and feet on opposite sides ” was a common punishment in ancient Egypt. The Romans were known for crucifixion (remember: the Qur’an was revealed while the Roman Empire was still in power). Are the modern nations any better with hanging, firing squads, lethal injection, gas chambers, etc.?

– 7.If you will kindly indulge those who wish to establish a theocracy for a moment, the offense of “firasaadan” is against BOTH the laws of man and the Laws of Allah / God. This is not an inconceivable idea born of savagery, but attempts to establish a code of conduct that balances human imagination and intellect, and Divine Revelation; which is beyond the capacity for human beings to equal.

– 8. Verse 34 offers a way out for those who sincerely wish to amend their conduct – this, even in the case of severe crimes. It is an act of mercy and forgiveness mandated by Allah.

” What kind of people would conceive and perpetrate a scheme that would lead to the burning, mutilation and death of 350 young children as was done in the school this week in Russia? What dogma was responsible for motivating Islamic women earlier this week to strap bombs to their bodies and board two Russian aircraft filled with passengers for the purpose of blowing them up and killing everyone? ”

You will notice that the propaganda of any totalitarian state often begins by asking questions that leave little room for any answer than the one that will be inevitably provided. It is a pattern that you doubtless noticed in your studies of the English language, and translations from propaganda from other sources like Communists, Nazis, Neoconservatives, Zionists, etc. And the website almost never mentioned “Muslim” crimes: always “Islamic”. The emphasis on Islam itself as opposed to erroneous and blasphemous interpretations by humans (motivated by non-religious agendas such as politics) is deliberate in its attempt to associate these horrors with Islam itself. Admittedly, the people who did this are monsters – but they can never be Muslims and do not represent Islam. I reject them, and refuse association with them; as do 1.3 billion of my fellow Muslims.

By the way, did you look at “Yada Yahwah”? http://yadayahweh.com/chapter.aspx?g=5106&i=51608 Sean seems to have his own religious agenda. But I digress,,,

” For two days, the world witnessed the face of terror. The Images on this page defy description; images of actions that can only be defined as sub-human. Yet we remain unwilling to acknowledge its cause. No political dogma or personality cult in all of human history has been sadistic enough to cause men to celebrate murder and mutilation. Only one thing can do that–Islam.”

” Face of terror “, ” sub-human “, ” Yet we remain unwilling to acknowledge, ,,”, ” sadistic “. My mind’s eye easily envisions a fevered tone of voice, hands making clawing motions in the air, a demented gleam in the eyes – and I cannot imagine these words spoken without them, no matter how subtle these gestures and tones may be.

Note also the lie about ” no political or personality cult, etc .” when you and I know that there are countless examples of at least the same ugly celebrations of murder and mutilation in non-Muslim religious fanatics, personality cult, and politics. A good example would be Adolph Hitler’s use of words like “Krach”, “Zerstörung”, and “Vernichtung”.

Allow me to respond to your disapproval about my (admittedly sarcastic) statement: ” The logic of their positions demand that they begin immediate acts of genocide against all Muslims .

Sean wrote: ” Islam is the most vile, intolerant, sadistic, destructive, and violent fraud ever perpetrated on human kind. It turns many into monsters. Islam must be exterminated or it will exterminate freedom, choice, truth, prosperity, liberty, life, and salvation .”

(Bold type is mine). Again, the emphasis on Islam itself; an obviously dehumanizing turn of phrase, while by default points the finger at Muslims. Note also his parroting of words like freedom, choice, truth, prosperity, liberty, life, and salvation” like other despots who rally people to their cause with these same words, only to establish a dictatorship. Consider; you cannot exterminate an idea; you can only exterminate living creatures . There is no escaping the fact that Sean deliberately called for extermination. It is an interesting syllogism to note that the German word for “extermination” is ” Vernichtung ” (see the previous paragraph).

I rest my case.

Jonathan, do you still believe that this man’s work is ” sober and factual with almost every statement carefully documented by reputable sources .”? I still say I could go on; but do I really need to? Must I dissect the whole website word for word? Or have you seen enough?

Perhaps if you approached me with different questions you’d find the answers you seek.

Oh, about the “spiritual station” comment, I meant no disrespect. You do use the word “Oracle” (zaporacle.com) in association with yourself, and you interpret dreams. Did I misunderstand you?

As I said, I was wrong to indulge in sarcasm. Passionate argument – and humor! – is one thing. And I do get passionate; sometimes more than I should. That is my nature. But bad manners are another thing. And I was remiss in not providing detailed arguments: which I remember is exactly what you asked for. This was wrong of me.

I often have difficulty finding time to write these things with the attention to detail that they deserve. I work two jobs; and have to find time to prepare for my work as an Imam as well. I have to speak to my own community. As you know, many terrorist groups recruit new members in prisons; I do almost all of my work as an Imam in prisons, and use Qur’an and Hadith to prove that Islam forbids terrorism, and to divert Muslims – especially vulnerable new converts – from extremism. I am on record with the New York City Department of Corrections and several mosques in the NYC area (including the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood, Masjid al-Farah, and Imam Ali Masjid) for doing this, and have been for the past nine years. I have been blessed with many successes in this; despite the “evidence” that Sean would present that would make this an impossibility. I say this only to show that I stand by what I believe, and I have seen that what I believe works.

It may interest you to know that I was “drafted” for the job as Imam, I never asked for it; and I don’t get paid. Its all voluntary.

I hope you’ll forgive my defects of character.

Ma’a Salaam,
Dawoud the Muslim Primate

Response from Sean 3-22-06

Jonathan
Dawood is confusing my website with Craig Winn’s site. Everything he is talking about is from Winn’s site. Not mine. I don’t have any links to Winn’s site. YadaYaweh is Winn’s site. I don’t have a religious agenda. I appreciate him taking the time to work through the translations. It’s very interesting to get his perspective but he’s on the wrong site and his responses don’t apply to me. This is the 6th time he has mentioned N.J. Dawood when I’ve said before I’m not using that translation. I have yet to open a Quran translated by Dawood and on his recommendaton I never will.
I’ve never said “Good jihadist Muslim” as he claims in point number 6. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if Craig Winn did. I didn’t mention Ibn Shaq. Craig did. Dawood is on the wrong website. I Never said Islam should be exterminated. He is critiqing the wrongs site, although I should say he did a very good job and again I find the translations very very interesting. My everloving point on my website, which I’m not sure he has even visited yet, has more to do with women burned, butchered and abused. www.womensassistance.com. I look forward to hearing thoughts on my site if he’d like to take the time. He can email me through the site directly.

Response from Jonathan,

Sean’s response speaks for itself, but I do want to add that you are correct in criticizing those statements from Winn’s site. Craig Winn is a Christian Fundamentalist and I find most fundamentalists to be hate-mongering. You may have been confused because at some point I sent you links to his site because it does have accurate quotes from the Qur’an. Although I gave a link to his site I only skimmed it myself and do find the parts you objected to extremely offensive.

As far as my ignoring the spiritual gems of Islam, you are probably right, but I didn’t set out to look for spiritual gems which can be found in all sorts of traditions, I set out to discover why so many women are being maimed and killed, and so many other bad things are happening in the name of Islam. Similarly, if this were the Middle Ages, I would want to know why Christians were burning millions of women at the stake. If a Christian responded by showing me many of the beautiful, pro-feminine statements by Jesus, I would respond, “Fine, so Jesus isn’t the problem, but what is the problem, where is this coming from?” When I look into the sacred texts of most religions I find a mixture of wonderful, exalted stuff and completely inconsistent hate-mongering stuff. This doesn’t surprise me because the human authors of these texts were sometimes inspired, sometimes in states of hate-filled projection. I am not against any religion, because a truly spiritually attuned person will sift through and find the gems. I am against fundamentalists of all religions because of their dangerous and naive use of texts to promote hate and violence. Again, and again I am seeking to turn my attention to a worthy object of contemplation, which is not your spiritual state or mine, but the extreme violence happening in the name of Islam. If there is any light that we can shed on this subject, we have a moral imperative to do so. I would like to see us working on the same side as opponents to this violence, and I see you as having tremendous assests to bring to this inqury with your background and your willingness to confront Muslim fundamentalists who distort the religion.

The inquiry that I am interested in, and that Sean and I are both interested in and actually on a daily basis doing things about (raising money for Muslim women who have been the victims of honor burnings, etc. and are asking for help) is about the violence happening today. There are a number of avenues of inquiry into this subject. One, which we have been pursuing together, relates to sorting through the historic and textual origins of this. This is a very tricky area because it requires real scholarship. You are better qualified to speak on these texts, but so far your posture has been understandably defensive. But here is how I would like to redirect that avenue of inquiry: are there parts of Islamic texts that really do, even if inadvertantly, support mistreatment of women and violence toward the infidel? I would be extremely surprised if there are none, if they are all mistranslations. In reforming a religion that has largely turned into a pathologocial fundamentalism there are a number of steps. One is to find out any passages that are being willfully mistranslated or interpreted to support violence and exposing that. Another step is to admit any passages that really are objectionable, not to sanitize these with creative translation or interpretation, but to openly repudiate them as regressive artifacts of earlier times that a living faith (and living means changing) can throw off. Besides the textual analysis, there are other key avenues of inquiry into unraveling the source of such virulent hatred and violence. Many on the left emphasize political and economic causal factors, which are very real, but which tend to get over emphasized so that the perpetrators of the violence are condescendingly viewed as innocent and merely reactive to oppression from Western forces. There is some validity to this, but it is taken too far, because other peoples have been even more oppressed, say the Native Americans, and didn’t take it out on their women. These same people on the left would not similarly excuse Hitler and the Nazis by pointing out that the Treaty of Versaille after WWI humiliated Germany and punished it economically and therefore Nazism was a completely understandable response. The avenue of inquiry I feel most qualified to participate in is a psychological inquiry into what is motivating the present violence, much of which seems to be a gigantic sexual pathology. There is much more I could say on that subject, but I first want to inquire about your willingness to follow this redirect of our attention which I sincerely believe will give greater moral purpose to our trialouge.

Sean writes 3-22-06

Hey Jonathan
This is right off the WAF website on the Purpose page. I’m not spreading hate, I’m pointing to issues of abuse that in my opinion are not being given enought global consideration.

Our desire at the Women’s Asssistance Fund is not to spread hate or fear about Islam, Muslims or any religion. Our desire and conviction is to provide a safe haven for women who are being physically abused, tortured, and deprived of life and the basic rights of human life, for whatever reason. We are not experts on the Koran or Islam, though our exploration of these subjects is ongoing. We do not make any allegations about what the true meaning of the Koran is, or what true Muslims believe. What we study and what we cry out against is the abuse of human life, specifically the abuse of those who have been rendered powerless by the legal and social structures of the societies in which they live. In our informational texts, we quote from the Koran to show how it has been and is being used as a basis to deprive women of rights. We quote religious figures who, by their own declaration, do not believe that women are equal to men and do not believe that they should be granted equal rights, and who base those beliefs in Islam. We do not do this to malign any religion; we do so to educate those who might make a difference of the reality of the horrible abuses that take place, and of the depth of belief that fosters such abuses.

Of course, we recognize that (probably) all religions have some followers who are truly compassionate towards others. We recognize that there are Muslim men who would never dream of abusing a woman, and that there is a wide range of freedoms experienced by women in different segments of Middle Eastern, Muslim society, depending on a woman’s family, location, background, education, affluence, etc.

Unfortunately, religion has been used throughout history as a pretext for myriad atrocities. Specifically, Islam has been used to justify the abuse, repression and murder of women for thousands of years, just as Christianity was used to justify the Crusades and the burning of witches hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately, Muslim societies today are, without question, the most repressive of women’s rights worldwide, so it is there that we focus our energies, and it is from those cultures that the most horrible stories of abuse arise. We share this information to educate those who are fortunate to live in free societies of what we can do to help stop human rights abuses. That is our only goal

Peace;

Dawoud responds, and also to an article we sent him by a Muslim woman seeking reform, Isrhad Manji:

The general consensus about Irshad Manji is that she is a fool. A bitter woman who has in effect declared that Islam as a thing in itself is wrong and by Allah, it better change! She’ll give us one more chance, then she’ll walk out and take her friends with her.

I hope you’ll allow me to indulge in a little bit of sarcasm!

Mind you, she does bring up valid points about the abuse of women, etc. But her error, and it is a monumental error, is to believe that these problems are something that is built in to Islam. This is not the case. Her scholarship and attempts to validate her beliefs with evidence from Qur’an and Hadith are quite pathetic.

I’m glad you brought this us. It affords me the chance to share some ideas I didn’t have time (or space: AOL is imposing a “rate limit” on my outgoing emails that never happened before. If it continues, I will go to one of their competitors) before.

I trust that I need no reiterate for you the evidence I gave in a previous email about that verse in the Qur’an that people ask about regarding “beating”.

In several verses in the Qur’an men and women are referred to as equals. For example, 5:8;
“Oh you who Believe, stand firmly for Allah as witnesses for justice and fairness, and do not let the hatred of outers cause you to act unjustly. Act with equity; for that is nearest to piety, and be careful of your duty to Allah, for Allah is aware of what you do”. in this; “Oh you who Believe” is not gender specific; a rarity in the Arabic language.

There are other verses that contain the phrase ” Ya ayuhul aminu, nass, wa aminu nisaa ” Oh you who are Believing men and believing women. In this context, the two genders are treated equally. The verse that tells women to “lower their gaze and guard their modesty” tells men the same thing.

In 4:1, Surat-ul Nissa (Women) Allah says ” Oh Humanity!  fear your Lord (Rabb) who created you from a single Nafs (soul / self / individual will / individual ego); created from it his mate, and from them twain scattered like seeds countless men and women. Fear Allah through whom you demand your mutual rights, and reverence the wombs that bore you; for Allah is ever watchful ” Note the phrase “mutual rights” which implies that both male and female have right to be fulfilled. Yet after this, we are commanded to reverence our mothers.

The Prophet Muhammad, whose life and example we follow, showed the following in his life:
1. He never beat, neglected, abused, or even yelled at any of his wives. And you must admit that his life was meticulously recorded. If spousal abuse were mandated by Islam, and Muhammad’s life is part of the source of Islamic Law, then by default, spousal abuse is a violation of Islamic Law.
2. His wives (9 total) owned and inherited their own property and ran their own businesses. Some became scholars, teachers and historians. A few were warriors! (during one battle, when the Quaraish broke through defenses, and four of them surrounded the Prophet, a woman, whose name I don’t know, picked up a sword, and fought alongside him. In another battle, a woman came up to the Prophet and complained that her sword broke. The Prophet told one of the men “give her a sword”)
3. One of his wives was Jewish; and she never converted to Islam. The Prophet never insisted that she do so.
4. The Prophet once said “The women are our first teachers, and Paradise lay at the feet of the mothers”
5. The Prophet said that ” The pursuit of knowledge is an obligation laid upon every Muslim man and every Muslim woman “. This is in Sahih Bukhari: and thus is Law. When the Taliban prevent women from receiving education, they forfeit their claim to Islam; and by choice and consent claim the status of Infidel and Apostate.
6. All of the Prophet’s wives could read and write; as did the women on their community. In fact, when the Muslims started engaging in warfare, the POWs were given a deal: for every ten Muslims they taught to read and write, they would be granted their freedom
7. The Prophet specifically forbad the practice of female circumcision.

There are many other examples I could give, but I believe you get the idea.

So! Where does the abuse of women come from? Tribal / cultural customs. The exact same psychological dementia that causes a man to abuse his wife; except that in some places it is extended to social structure. Religion is a mask they wear; and just like that scene in Star Wars 6, if you remove Darth Vader’s mask; you see an incomplete and malformed weakling under it – one that bears no resemblance to a true Muslim. or a true Believer (and make no mistake: these are not the same thing at all). Or a true Jedi for that matter!

Now, there are some marked psychological differences between men and women (I will not insult your intelligence by listing the physical ones! HA! HA! HA!). In general, men work their wills in the world externally, and process thoughts and feelings internally. Women do the opposite. Men have qualities that, when properly developed and tempered, embody those of a king, a warrior, a magi, and a lover. Note the emphasis on properly developed and tempered. This is the kicker: if any of these are out of balance, then all manner of defects arise: cowardice, bullying, manipulation, greed, abuse of the weak, etc. will arise. And in our society, we no longer have the means of assisting young people in the transition between childhood and adulthood. Many people are not adults; they’re children in adult bodies. They, in turn, sire more such creatures. The result is a nation of children.

If women were our first teachers and paradise lay at the feet of the mothers, what kind of man could oppress them? The Taliban and others like them are in such a condition because they  violate Islam. How can they know anything when their “first teachers” know nothing? Men MUST lead; and women MUST guide and inspire. They need each other or the whole structure becomes unstable. Both Muhammad and Jimi Hendrix said that a woman is the other half of a man.

Ms. Manji is part of a shattered landscape that is crawling about desperately trying to make sense of senselessness and pleading for love and recognition. But her logic is backwards. In the end, she and her followers will arrive at an intellectual and spiritual cul de sac.

Ma’a Salaam,
Dawoud
Peace;

I cannot overemphasize the sorrow I feel for the mistake I made and the slandering of Sean’s character! I’m almost overcome with shame for having done this – albeit mistakenly – to one who I now see, in retrospect, to be a man with a good heart and honorable intentions.

In a response I made to the “Muslim woman speaks about the wall” article; I attempted to show a few examples of how Islam actually forbids the mistreatment of women. I also touched upon how these things are actually manifestations of, at best, human weaknesses, and at worst, human evils. I will look any man in the eye and say that the Qura’n is Allah’s Words and not the product of human imagination. However, Allah is compassionate and merciful; and we should embody these qualities ourselves. To twist them into horrors like “honor killing” or suicide bombing is nothing short of a blasphemy and a crime in the eyes of God and man.

We all have to understand that the “Left” and “Right” have claim only to a part of the solutions needed. It is sometimes necessary to “step outside” the dialectic of current political bodies, and see them all from a perspective that allows no alliances to either.

I wish to be clear about something. The verses in the Qur’an that talk about fighting, were revealed when the fledgling Muslim community was under attack – and this after enduring ten years of persecution. And it is also important to note the specific circumstances that they were revealed in. When the Qur’an speaks in seemingly disparaging tones about Jews, there are two basic contexts here. One is in direct reference to those specific times when the Bani Israel broke their covenant with YHVH, and in reference to two Jewish tribes in Arabia at the time whose practices of the Mosaic Law were so corrupted that other Jews refused to recognize them, and the fact, recorded in Muslim and non-Muslim histories, that they broke peace treaties with the Muslims.

While Islamic Law is clear about taking up arms only to defend yourself, starting war for the sake of war is forbidden. I doubt anyone will argue this. But I ask anyone: if we are attacked, oppressed, or treated with injustice; do you really expect us to simply lay down and take it? Do you think that it’s inconceivable that we may have legitimate claims to justice? Is our blood cheaper than that of other’s.

And even in the case of some of the places where terrorism and war happen, we must admit that each case must be taken individually; and not broad statements that will overshadow the truth. A truth that gets more complex as time goes on, and more difficult to see beyond the confines of our own individual perspectives – and egos. For that is the road that leads to hysteria, hate mongering, war mongering, and hell. All human beings must pay heed to this warning.

There are no blanket answers to this. Everyone had blood on their hands and no group is innocent. But among them are innocent people in dire circumstances that they may not always make the right choice about. I know of Israeli solders who refused to participate in the persecution of Palestinians. I met Palestinians who have no ill will toward Jews or Christians, and simply wish to be left alone. I know Jews who reject Zionism. I know Christians who help Muslims. I know neo-pagans whose ideas in many ways resemble the basic spirit of the Abrahamic Faiths.

I also know Jews who looked me in the eye and told me that God wants them to have that land and to exterminate the Palestinians. I know Christians whom it is impossible to have a conversation with before they start howling about JEEEEZUSS! I know Muslims who say the most unbelievably stupid things about their religion (some entertaining examples: “The most important thing about Islam is that your wife is covered!” “It is haram (forbidden) to chew bubble gum!” “All Jews are the scourge of the earth!” “Your wife must wear a garment that covers every part of her body except one eye!”. I met one Muslim man who reprimanded a young woman for using a camera, saying that photographs are haram; and then worked into his tirade an obscure Hadith where the Prophet was quoted as saying “If you allow a dog to lick from your plate, you must wash it seven times before using it again” – apropos of nothing).

About seven years ago, a Bosnian Imam gave a sermon, and he said that in parts of Bosnia; women and children were being murdered and raped in the streets; and the men were in the mosques arguing about the proper length of a man’s beard! In light of the problems that face humanity, it is perhaps best to leave the theological hairsplitting for another day. On Star Trek, the Klingons used to say “Only a fool fights in a burning house”. However, the Qur’an, Hadith and Tassawuff (Sufism / spiritual and mystical science of Islam) are my weapons in this spiritual struggle. I will share what teachings and evidence to refute the crimes of the infidels (who are undoubtedly real: but not who most people think they are!) as well as the psudo-Muslims who wish to turn Islam into a dictatorship with no god but their own egos.

Please let Sean know how badly I feel about the horrible mistake I made. I pray that this email finds you all well.

Ma’a Salaam,

Dawoud

Peace;

I’m not usually wrong, but when I screw up, I do it big time !

My most profuse apologies to you and Sean. While I stand by everything I said in critique of the WAF website, I was under the mistaken impression that it was Sean’s website. In this, I stand corrected, offer no defense, and ask one and all, especially Sean, for forgiveness.

I feel as great a fool as I ever did; and would never willingly assault the character of an innocent man; least of all one who is engaged in unselfish work to help the defenseless.

I just made a brief visit to Sean’s website; and I must say I am impressed! From my brief perusal, I will say that Sean’s work is not only necessary, but noble and inspiring.

Know that I repent my association of Sean with the WAF, and will try to amend my bad conduct. Please post this apology on your site ASAP: all must read it.

Ma’a Salaam,
Dawoud

Dawoud

Peace;

To continue please go to Part V