A trip in the mind of a “supposedly” moderate Americanized Muslim

Muslim don't miss a chance to say how proud they're to be Muslims, but they're ashamed to debate their Koran as if it was plagued ... I can't blame them ... It is plagued. Geert Wilders should call it  "the plague movie".

Yesterday I had a debate with the multi talented Selim Siddiqui on the gathering storm radio show.

Mr. Siddiqui sounds very Americanized, very polite and gives the "impression" of a liberal intellectual Muslim, he was invited to the show to debate me on Islam. He tried all along the show to stir the debate as far away from the Islamic text to a philosophical politicized debate about the reformation of the Muslim Brotherhood. He acted as if the international Islamic terror is not related to the teaching of Mohammad, the Sonnah (Hadith) or the Koran. To him the problem was the terrorists that hijacked Islam, and the issue concerning him now is to find Muslim interlocutors that we can talk to.

At one point Siddiqui said “Osama Ben Laden is using the religion to justify terrorism” which is of course the classic line of the majority of Muslims (there is a minority of liberal Muslim intellectuals that expressed a more honest opinion) . That was a good point to bring back the debate to Islam. So I asked Mr. Siddiqui what exactly moderate Muslim interlocutors can talk about beside the fake interfaith discussions? And asked him to give the audience one example, not two, but just one to prove that what Osama Ben Laden is using from the religion to justify his terror action, is not from Islam or contradicts the teaching of the Koran or any teaching from Islamic text, His answer was:

Siddiqui: Are you asking me if terrorism is accepted by religion, no. The killing of innocent civilians is not accepted in any religion.

Ibn: Mr. Siddiqui, I believe you know your Koran, so if you say that no religion teach about killing, can you explain this to the audience, Koran 9:29, “Kill those who believe not in Allah … . till they pay the Jeziah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

Siddiqui: Yes, I can explain it very clearly, and I say that this verse relate to war time, if it’s a war time situation therefore it applies, we’re not talking about innocent civilians which is terrorism. Now when I say that verse doesn’t apply to terrorism, you say no it does. Then I say that Osama ben Laden and the terrorists are incorrect, you say no, that Islam is teaching that, that means you agreeing with them, and me and the rest of the main stream Muslims are saying no, this is incorrect, terrorism is not justified. So I don’t understand what your argument is?  This is only apply during war time.

[Comment: Mr.Siddiqui is an Islamic scholar by his own admission, graduate from el Azhar in Cairo, the most prominent Islamic University in the world. He is the first to know that it’s a MUST for all Muslims to read the Koran in light of the Tafsir (interpretations.) And according to the tafsir this verse does not relate to any war time, it is open ended with no time limitations, and applying on innocent civilian people. And since Mr.Siddiqui said “we’re not talking about innocent civilians which is terrorism.” Then this is an admission from his mouth that this verse is terrorism in the Koran.

“Now when I say that verse doesn’t apply to terrorism, you say no it does”. Mr. Siddiqui performed here a double summersault front of the Western audience, as it is customary from the masters of illusions, by claiming that what he says or I say becomes the official interpretation of Islam for the Umma. If he was an illiterate Muslim, we would give him the benefit of the doubt, but, again, for an Islamic scholar from Al Azhar,it’s amazing. It seems they spend to much time in Al Azhar teaching Taquia, to the detriment of the Koranic studies.

Then Mr.Siddiqui keep on rambling to the same tune, “I say OBL and the terrorists are incorrect, you say no. Then you agree with them, me and the main stream say no, terrorism is not justified.” Finishing his intervention with the knock out line, “So I don’t understand what your argument is?” first Siddiqui accuse us of myopia, for not seeing that this verse have nothing at all with terrorism, then he don’t understand what’s the argument. I have one answer to this: Mr. Siddiqui, you are a true Muslim.]        

Ibn: Mr. Siddiqui, aren’t you the ones saying, the Koran is the eternal word of Allah that is valid for all time, places, and to all people? Second, give me any reference from all your Islamic sources that says that Christians of Jews fought Mohammad. You will not find any. Third Mr. Siddiqui, in that verse there is no limitation, it doesn’t say in the verse “you kill Christians and Jews .. ect. If they fight you”. Besides, why  the Islamic authorities never announced that new interpretation to the terrorists in the first place.They are the  ones that needs to be guided to the right path, not us.

Siddiqui: My point is very simple, there is two groups, those who suggest that the Koran and Islam is bend on world domination and believe that you can kill anybody at any time, or those who believe that no, when there is a Bush talking about killing, it is referring to war, during a just cause war declared properly by the leader of the Muslim nation. Just like we would have an open war declared by Congress here, and therefore terrorism is not allowed. Now, he’s (me) suggesting that, no, the Koran does allow terrorism and O.B.Laden is correcting his interpretation. Then I say no, that’s incorrect, we’re disagreeing on a major fundamental of where the religion stands. The majority of the Muslim world that we say we’re trying to reach out to is saying no, Islam does not justify terrorism like that. Terrorism is a crime, and only in just war would you have actual war time situation. Now my point in saying all of this is that our goal is to move forward and figure out how we promote that cause not to promote the opposite, not to agree with the terrorists and promote their cause or their interpretation of the Koran. So I don’t understand the point of this argument where it leads to a worsening of the situation, where you know as well as I know that the majority of the Muslim world does not believe what you’re saying. The majority of the Muslim world all over the world in every different country are very peaceful and do not look at the religion that way.

[Comment: Again, Mr Siddiqui disregard what I told him about the official interpretation of the verse that every Muslim is bound by it, and talk about people suggestions. As if the interpretation of the Koran is left to suggestions. Then he runs for cover to Bush talking about war. Does Bush offer three choices to the enemy? Either they become Christians and believe in Bush’s prophet (no matter who it is), or pay a jeziah (blood money) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued, or be killed. And of course, again, he doesn’t understand, and accuse me of worsening the situation for committing the sin of proving that the Koran is a terrorists manual.]  

- Mr. Siddiqui, you being from Al Azhar, should be the first to know that a Muslim have to emulate your prophet and follow his teaching to the letter in everything. He even taught you how to defecate. In a hadith your prophet told you with which foot you enter the toilet, how you position yourself in a different direction from el Ka’aba, and how to wipe your behind with three or an odd number of stones. [It seems that Hadith was too smelly for Mr. Siddiqui's taste, that he found an excuse to interrupt me, claiming that it wouldn't interest the audience. For the records, Ali Gom'aa, Egypt's mufti, recently published a book dedicated to "the prophet's holy sh.t and urine", which caused quiet an effect all over the Arab world.]  And no one is allowed to re-interpret the Koran or Islamic texts according to his own mood. Mohammad said, " I was ordered to fight all people until they say there is no god but Allah, and I am his messenger ..etc”. What would you do with this? And do you want to tell us that Mohammad wasn’t a true Muslim for fighting all people?

- Of course I defend my religion, but if you like to interpret these verses of hadith the way you like ..[Again, claiming it's the way I like]

- Ok Mr. Siddiqui, forget about my interpretation, how you interpret it yourself?

- If you interpret it literally, then yes of course, but did the prophet went on fighting everybody?

- Do I understand from what you said that any Muslim that interpret the Koran literally have to be a terrorist? And yes, Mohammad fought everybody, including slaughtering 900 Jews from the tribe of Korayza with his own hand, making them dig their own graves first, and killing and deporting the rest. Even on his death bed, he said, no two religions should exist in Arabia..

- I see this as an attack on my religion..

- Mr.Siddiqui, do you consider quoting from your Islamic books to be an attack ..

At a certain point, Mr. Siddiqui asked me what do I suggest as a solution for terrorism, to which I stated my belief that the Islamic authorities should come to a consensus to abrogate completely all the killing and hateful versus in the Koran for Islam to have a chance to continue as a religion. He found that unthinkable..

The problem with Muslims is, what they think is unthinkable today, is the reality of tomorrow. They don't seem to read the writing on the wall. The great general and humanist Moshe Dayan said it very accurately , " Arabs - it applies on all Muslims- don't read, and if they read, they don't understand".

This is just an excerpt, to listen to the full debate go here