Home >> Middle East >> Islam

     Email   Print 

Will The Internet Slay Islam - A Response

Sirajul Haq Khan - 5/20/2007

This article is in response to Will the Internet Slay Islam? written by Wolfgang Bruno published by the Global Politician on May 17, 2007.

It is true, and was highly predictable, that with the technological advances in modern communication e-fatwas have increased in frequency, as have other things that are now much more accessible such as pornography and child abuse. The current Chief cleric of Egypt (unnamed in your article), is Mufti ‘Ali Jumaa (pronounced ‘Gomaa’ in Egyptian dialect).

In ‘Leading Egypt Cleric Wants Fewer Frivolous Edicts’2 Sheikh ‘Ali Jumaa makes the pertinent point that giving a fatwa, a legal opinion, on a matter is the domain of one who is trained in the Islamic science of jurisprudence (fiqh) and is generally knowledgeable in Islam and more importantly, pious.3

Mr. Bruno is correct in pointing out that the Muslim world showed reluctance in adopting the advances in printing and hints at culture, but puts this down, largely, to religious resistance. He omits any reason for this resistance, and as to why the orthodoxy showed reluctance with the advances of the printing press.

The fact is, and as a writer on Islam Mr. Bruno must know this, that Islam lays heavy, even extraordinary, emphasis on its oral tradition. It is established that the Qur’an, although written on parchments and other surfaces, was not compiled into book form until after the death of the Prophet as it was feared that the oral tradition would be lost as a result of the deaths of many of those who had memorised the Qur’an fully by heart.

Similarly, up to this very day, if one travels to the deserts of Mauritania and Yemen, one will typically find traditional institutions of learning in which a scholar will be found orally teaching his students great classical works of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, philosophy and spirituality, which have been passed down, by memory from generations of scholars to the upcoming generations of scholars – not through texts.

This is a great tradition that the Muslims were, and still are, proud of and proof of it is found in such scholars who have memorised not only the Qur’an by heart but hundreds of traditions of the Prophet, with a whole chain of narrators leading all the way back to the Prophet who initially spoke those words.

And it should be noted through the history of Andalusia in Spain, that it was not only the Muslims who admired this tradition. Rather, this is the very tradition that gave birth to the modern Western Education system.

A scholar in an Islamic institute of learning would teach his students certain traditional texts, only those which he had learnt through this system and the students would in turn memorise them. Once they had gained sufficient proficiency in the text, its criticisms and its application, an oral examination was taken. If successful, the student received an ‘Ijaza’ (literally ‘permission’) in that subject or text. He could then, on the basis of this ‘Ijaza’ teach others in this very way.

This is where the Western Educational Institutions derive the modern forms of education, whereby a student goes to university, is lectured on established texts, their criticisms and application, and if successful in the examination they receive a degree, which recognises their proficiency in that subject.

This system, and the reluctance to move to traditional text-based learning with minimal personal instruction from a scholar may be regarded as superfluous to non-Muslim observers, but is highly acclaimed up to this day as the reason for the preservation and freedom from interpolation of our classical texts and works, the Pinnacle of which are the sources of Islam, The Qur’an and the Ahadith (sayings of the Prophet).

David Wood’s Claims – Un-academic

It is blasphemous, and may be worthy of death, to vilify the character of Prophet Muhammad, but to assert that Islam, or the Prophet condoned or even ordered the punishment of blasphemers as death is simply unjustifiable.

I further challenge Mr. Wood, or Mr. Bruno, to provide one sound4 narration that proves that this was done with the approval, assent or knowledge of the Prophet, and if it was done, that he did not condemn it.

Unfortunately none of Mr. Wood’s claims are supported by explicit references, thus the veracity of his claims are doubtful in an academic context and I would be grateful if this could be done in order to have a full and frank dialogue.

While doing this, Mr. Bruno and Mr. Wood would be well advised to remember that it is amateurish of academics to regard acts perpetrated by some muslims due to their own error or personal desires and weaknesses should be taken as being reflective of Islam as a religion, or Muhammad’s teachings as a Prophet, for it is quite possible that they perpetrated such acts due to their own ‘hawa’ (vain desires).

The Prophet’s life, Islam and Modernity & David Woods’ sources of Islam – an apostate

It is the height of bigotry to allege that Muslims have attempted to hide certain facts in an attempt to “silence everyone”.

Contrary to this, the life of Muhammad is an open book – no Muslim has either the need to hide anything which the Prophet did or practiced or “scurry to defend their faith”.

Contrary to what Mr. Wood thinks, Islam will not fall, due to the very fact that the edifice that it is built upon is the strongest that was available at its inception – no other ideology will survive the onslaughts of the modern world as will Islam.

We already see that new world orders come, and they go, purely because this is the effort of man trying to control his surroundings.

Unlike Islam, other religions, too, attempt to lay down certain laws which they try to enforce to the hilt, preventing anyone from changing them in the slightest – no-one likes change.

Judaism has been stagnant in its relativity to current times. To this day the majority of Jews rush home on a Friday afternoon purely because they cannot use technology on the Sabbath. To some extent our Jewish brothers are to be praised for the regard they give to their law. For Christians, on the other end of the scale, this strict adherence to the law was too much, and they took the words of Jesus too far – so much so that little of their law is currently practiced!

But because the seed of Islam was planted by the hand of God Almighty Himself, and He is All-Knowing, He established the Prophet as the leader of a community which was declared as the ‘Ummatun Wasata’5 - A Moderate Community [The Qur’an 2:144]. This is not surprising, perhaps, as some religions acknowledge the law as a curse upon themselves and thus leave it altogether, whereas other apply the law so harshly that it is a burden and teleologically not conducive to progression.

Islam proves that by following the broad principles set out in the divine law man can tackle contemporary issues from within the mechanisms of the divine law, rather than by abrogating them.

Islam has, within its legal methodology, the dynamic concept of ‘Ijtihad’, through which scholars of jurisprudence and other sciences, such as medicine (etc.) decide contemporary problems in light of, and in line with, the divine law, the principles of which are to be found in the sources of the Shari’ah (i.e. The Qur’an, The Oral Traditions (Hadith), The Practice of the Prophet (Sunnah), Ijma’ of the Companions (Consensus)) This is contrary to modern and non-Islamic legal methods which involve abrogation and repealing of laws that are found to be contrary to modernity through a secular consensus.

The Islamic Law, again to be differentiated from the practice of Muslims in certain places, theoretically allows for absolute modernity as long as the societal and moral and ethical standards are upheld in society as required by the Qur’an.

Mr. Woods declares that the belief of virtually all Muslims that “Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history is “demonstrably false”.

However, the “demonstrability” of Mr. Woods’ is evidenced by the scholarship of none-authorities on Islam like Ibn Warraq, a self-confessed apostate.

Here, I must agree with Mr. Woods, that “increased knowledge does not always translate into increased wisdom”, but submit that he should be mindful of this principle when criticising Islam and the Prophet using references from known apostates, with little or knowledge of the Islamic sciences, such as Ibn Warraq

Again I agree with Mr. Woods, in that Muslims do not have a similar weltanschauung to westerners or non-muslims.

And how can they? Muslims see pornography as a violation of decency and promotion of promiscuity, leading to fornication and adultery, whereas the westerners (especially their legal systems) protect pornography as a “freedom” and a “right”.6

Similarly, homosexuality and adultery are not punishable by law as they once were – this is going to have enormous teleological effects on societies, as well as same-sex marriages. Islam regulates that if adultery is so tempting, then you should marry other women, as long as you can deal justly with them (upto four at one time) giving them due entitlement to the rights of marriage – which are much more stringent in Islam than in secular systems. This is surely a better situation than married men and women having adulterous relationships without the knowledge of their partners, and if illicit children are born out of such relationships they, as well as the woman, are deprived of due rights, and are often left to fend for themselves – leading to poverty.

I can go on. No – Islam and Muslims do not view the world in the same way westerners/non-muslims do. But, Yes – Islam and Muslims do share certain worldly visions, perceptions of society and relationships with others, with followers of other divinely-revealed religions.

Surely Mr. Woods cannot disagree that Islam and the Islamic Law provide certain safeguards to maintain healthy societal conditions.

Islam and Concubines: The Orientalist cycle repeats itself

Sadly, with regards to his allegation of the acceptance of concubines in Islam, Mr. Woods would be well advised to further research the evolution of phrases in Arabic and Islamic etymology as well as Islamic history as he seems to have fallen into the trap of many an Orientalist by failing to understand the meanings of the term ‘ma malakat aymaanukum’ (literally: “those whom your right hands possess”) as stated in Chapter 4, Verse 25 and therefore misusing it.

The verse is set specifically in the context marriage and the classifications of allowed and prohibited marriages. The verse specifically states:

“And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there is no blame on you what you do by mutual agreement after the fixing of the dowry. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.”7


Slavery is not an allowed trade in Islam and it was a pre-Islamic practice that was slowly regulated, primarily to those who had deprived themselves of freedom by partaking in a war against the Muslims and thus becoming prisoners, and eventually eradicated towards the completion of the revelation of the Qur’an. This can be substantially proven if need be, but I doubt it will be contended.

Thus, if slavery is no more, then there can be no concubines, for concubines are nothing more than female slaves bought for sexual gratification, and turned into mistresses.

It is a misinterpretation to understand ‘ma malakat aymanukum’ to mean concubines in this context. Rather, the term signifies, literally, “those whom your right hands possess” and cannot thus be used for wives8 or daughters, but only for those who are ‘rightfully possessed’9 – the only way such possession came about after the manumission of slavery, was in times of war.

The problem with female prisoners of war was that if they were to be returned to their husbands, etc., they, assuming that the women would have been ravaged through indecent sexual violence (as was the custom or pre-Islamic Arab tribes) would not take them back. This perception is all too apparent today, only the captors of prisoners of war are not merely perceived to have abused their female captives it was a tragic reality that, as amply evidenced by the crimes of Americans in Vietnam as well as by International Military Tribunal in Rwanda.

Such treatment of female prisoners of war was unheard of during the Prophet’s time or even under the Early Caliphate, at least not with his approval, knowledge, condemnation, or accordingly, punishment of the perpetrators. Not a single case is to be found in the history of those periods.10

Thus the term ‘those whom your right hands possess’ has been much exploited. It is taken to mean concubines but as aforementioned, to describe a concubine bought from a market or from her master (as in pre-Islamic Arabia) as one of 'those whom your right hands possess' is a complete misnomer. The very use of the words ‘from those whom your right hands have taken possession of’ (which is the correct rendering of the Arabic phrase ‘mimma malakat aimanukum’) clearly points to women captured in battle, whereby the right hand is used to take possession of a prisoner. To apply that phrase to a woman bought from a slave market or from a master is totally unwarrantable and academically irresponsible.

Furthermore,11 certain commentators infer that ‘those whom your right hands possess’ are distinguished from free women in this and in other verses. “That is also explained in this very verse. If the former are guilty of adultery after marriage, their punishment is to be half that of free married women. It is because of the separate treatment under the Qur’anic law of these women who have come recently from a non-Muslim society and, therefore, the same high moral standards cannot be expected from them, that their separate mention was required.”12

Therefore, because of the clear ban on sexual indulgence outside marriage (Qur’an; 24:33) and the requirement that even those women 'whom your right hands possess' must be married properly (4:25), giving them all due rights of marriage including divorce, etc., concubinage is simply not permissible in Islam, and never was it practiced after divine revelation clarifying this.

As for the female prisoners of war, they are to be set free without ransom, or with light ransom, as in the case of male captives. However, if women become prisoners of war, loses her liberty due to being captured and effectively becomes ‘milkun yamin’ and then fails to get her release by an exchange of prisoners of war, and her release is not justifiable due to political expediencies during times of war, and neither do her captives demand her release by way of ransom, nor does she wish to enter a contract ‘mukaatabah’ with her captors, then in such a case if her captor chooses to marry her, giving her all the rights of a wife and effectively then granting her freedom (as after that she may justifiably divorce her captor and be granted full release), then how can anyone possibly object to this? This is the only situation, apart from bilateral consent of the man and the woman, in which relations between a Muslim ‘and what his right hands possess’ is permissible.

However, it is contended by some scholars, that even without consent on behalf of the woman, a male captor may marry her without her express consent as she effectively forfeits her consent by taking part in a war waged against Muslims. Even then, a Muslim captor can not have sexual or any other relationship with her until he marries her.13

Additionally, those that are married and are ransomed but do not wish to go back to their husbands, can also be married by their former captors as, although a Muslim cannot marry a woman who is already married; her previous marriage is regarded as void by virtue of her reluctance to go back.14

Sexual relations with female prisoners is not permitted by this or any other verse in the Qur’an, except in the circumstances that she is first married, as explained above.

The Prophet properly married those women whom his right hand possessed. Two of his wives, Safiyyah and Juwairiyah came to him as prisoners. He married them both lawfully, and then enjoyed relationships with them.

There is much criticism about the fact that the then King of Egypt gave Mary the Copt to the Prophet as a gift. The fact that he also married her is a prime example of the Islamic position on relationships with women ‘whom your right hands possess.’

Finally, on this point, unless Mr. Wood clarifies which ‘traditional’ scholars he is referring to I cannot make blanket statements, especially as difference of opinions amongst scholars varies, as do the qualifications of ‘traditional scholarship’.

Again, unfortunately Mr. Wood is turning a possibly academic dialogue into childish rhetoric devoid of any substance, constantly referring to the concept of ‘Islam’ and the ‘acts of some muslims’ interchangeably, as one and the same thing, thus I shall not comment on “wearing a gold ring at the same time [as beheading a Buddhist schoolteacher]”.

Such acts, committed in the name of Islam, do not represent the teachings of Islam, nor do they accord with the beliefs of the majority of Muslims.

It would be akin to saying that “bombing the southern United States is a Christian thing to do, as long as you go to church on Sunday in your best outfit.”

(Reference is being made to Eric Rudolph, who, although claimed to be a catholic, bombed southern areas in the United States in the 1990s killing around 3 people, and injuring hundreds. Some people stated that to call ‘Eric Rudolph a Christian is an oxymoron’. Why is the same not applicable to a Muslim who beheaded a Buddhist Schoolteacher – calling him a Muslim, too, would be an oxymoron if it were for me to judge.)

Marriage of the Prophet to A’isha

The common attempt at slandering the Prophet for marrying A’isha at the age of 9 is typically run-of-the-mill rhetoric, only it is crudely argued by Mr. Wood in this piece.

A thousand books and websites will explain it for those who are willing to accept certain facts.

Not only is it conveniently omitted by Mr. Wood that that Prophet had not consummated the marriage through intercourse until many years later, but also cultural imperative and societal norms of those times have also been ‘conveniently’ left out of Mr. Wood’s criticism.

For example, it is a fact that the age of consent has kept on increasing since the time of the Prophet, yet it is generally acknowledged in some cultures and traditions that the correct age of consensual sex (which requires marriage in Islam) should be the age of puberty.15

In Yemen in 1999, the minimum marriage age of fifteen for women, rarely enforced, was abolished; the onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at the age of nine, was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage.16

Current research data from the United States amply shows that girls start to show onsets of puberty as early as 8 years old:

“…Among females, two recent large cross-sectional studies indicate that fifty percent of females in the United States attain Tanner breast stage 2 at 9.5 to 9.7 years of age. This is younger than previously thought, although adequate earlier studies of girls in the United States are not available for comparison. These two studies also indicate that about 14% of girls attain Tanner stage 2 while 8 years of age; one study extends earlier reporting that about 6% exhibit onset of breast development while 7 years of age. …” 17

Whether the age of puberty is the ‘right’ age for consensual sex today is another matter which can be debated, as many variables need to be explored; such as the fact that 10 year old girls in Algeria take care of the running of whole households, whereas in the west, a 10 year old girl is probably learning how to ride a bicycle with no hands.

It will be shocking for Mr. Wood to learn that in the UK, only in 1885 did the age of sexual consent for women rise from 13 at that time to 16.18

And in the United States, the federal age of consent is 16. But in Texas, in the 21st Century, children can marry as young as 14 provided they have the agreement of parents and a judge.19

So, in the UK the age of consent was 13, and it rose to 16 after 122 years. One can only wonder what it was before then!!!


Wearing Silk and Gold – Between Wisdom and Reason

Yes, typically, the reasoning behind men being prohibited from wearing silk and gold is that the Shari’ah prohibits it for our own benefit. Just as natural law theorists claim that the natural law prohibits wanton killing of other people because it is for our own benefit.

Similarly, many muslims believe that in the hereafter, we shall not have bodies to accompany our souls as we do in this life – rather they will be different, created to suit the life in the hereafter (or ‘heaven’ to use contemporary nomenclature) – thus it is a question of relativity – what use is gold and silk in heaven if we do not have bodies in heaven that can make use of gold and silk, or even alcohol. It is thus submitted that these terms are contemporary treasures and luxuries and bounties that will have metaphorical equivalents in the hereafter, relative to our ‘bodies’.

However, for rationalists, there is further reasoning behind the prohibition of men wearing silk and gold.

At the outset it is to be made clear that for medical reasons it is perfectly permissible to wear silk if, for example, one is prone to extraordinary perspiration or allergies to other fabrics.

Nevertheless, there are two main reasons for these prohibitions:

Firstly, both are luxurious and expensive items and Islam does not promote extravagance and arrogance, which these things are typically a symbol of. However, they are permitted amongst women as they are more attractive to women than they are o men for the beauty within them – whereas women employ them for adornment, men use them as a symbol of status and boasting.

Secondly, A Muslim man’s beauty is in his deeds and his mind – this is not to say (as is expected of such critics) that a Muslim woman’s beauty is not in her mind – rather the Prophet said this is one of the qualities to look for in a woman when choosing a bride (i.e., to look for intelligence). Furthermore, a Man is supposed to show masculinity and women are supposed to be effeminate. For men to show feminine qualities is just as abhorrent to Muslims as women showing masculine qualities. However, the modern world has started to plunge into greater depths of obscenity whereby women not only dress as men, and vice-versa (cross-dressers/drag-queens), but both go to the disgusting lengths of attaining or losing their sexual organs in replacement for those of the opposite sex!

The website Mr. Wood has quoted on the opinions about silk and gold are basic websites and these are not legal opinions (fatwas). A legal opinion, or fatwa, must necessarily include the jurist’s reasoning from the sources of Islam, and only then is followed by the jurist’s own opinion on the matter with regards to specific variables.

Mr. Wood would be well advised to seek counsel from an authoritative website which follows this traditional methodology, such as http://qa.sunnipath.com.


However, we do disagree with the notion of blind following in faith and thus “simply submitting to Allah”. Yes, one should submit to the Wisdom of Allah, but that doesn’t mean one cannot ponder and attempt to reason with the wisdom of Allah in order to reconcile the two. However, to state that “we shall only submit if WE can reconcile Allah’s wisdom with ours” is flagrant arrogance and pre-supposes flaws in the concept of ‘Allah’ whom we believe is the supreme being free from all imperfections.

Cyber ex-Muslims and Ibn Warraq – Who is he??

Ibn Warraq, a known apostate and outspoken critic of Islam, has no traditional scholarship in Islam and as such to promote him as such is flagrant propaganda in an attempt to legitimise his views. His name is not known due to his infamy and he has thus taken up the pen-name ‘Ibn-Warraq’. Although he studied under Montgomery Watt, a renowned historian and fairly sincere scholar of Islam, Watt’s Orientalist tendencies have definitely been learnt well by Ibn-Warraq – it is a sham that he did not take certain other of watt’s views of the Prophet, such as:

“The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge Muhammad? By the standards of his own time and country? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today? When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam.

“From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'.”20

The figures Mr. Wood quotes may be true, conversely they may not be true. There is no possible way of verifying who is a Muslim and who is an ex-Muslim through the medium of the internet. I can, today, create around 30 or so multiple personalities on internet forums claiming to be an ex-Muslim, giving different criticisms copied and pasted from anti-Islamic websites in order to show that there is a huge increase in the number of ex-muslims!! This is one of the flaws of the internet – thus empirical data gathered in this way is not credible at all.

It is not possible to gather data from such sources which could be concocted overnight, thus the assertions that “there are already hundreds of thousands, probably millions or maybe even tens of millions of ex-Muslims in cyberspace” is an unproven hypothesis, and a wildly optimistic one at that.

As a member of one of the most dynamic communities in Islam, I do not propose the abolition of the concept of freedom of speech. I do, however, propose that sensitivities should be considered and free speech be regulated by its orators in a way whereby even criticisms that are offensive be sensitively posed with all sincerity and truthfulness, not for the mere hype of it.

It is well understood that certain Muslim beliefs, i.e. that of Jesus being a Prophet of God is very offensive to certain orthodox Jewish brethren, yet we never pose our belief, or at least Muslims should not pose this point, in order to ridicule or mock the Jewish religion.

Similarly, the beliefs of Christians in that Jesus was the Son of God, or was even god himself, is very offensive to Muslims, but we accept this as their belief and, although offended by it to some extent, because it is promoted by Christians in a sensitive and sincere manner, we take no offence. Certain evangelical Christians, however, ridicule Islam and the Prophet whilst declaring their beliefs in Jesus – and that is just as offensive to Muslims, as it is when certain Muslims declare their belief in the Unity of God by blowing up Buddhist statues.

Thus the conclusion to this tale ends with the fact that it is not our religions that are to be blamed for apparently failing mankind – rather, it is mankind, who with all our greed and lust for world dominance, have failed our religions.

Mr. Wood attempts to conclude with one final blow to the Prophet by alleging that the punishment for leaving Islam was death.

Further, this is nowhere to be found in the sources of Islam, and again I challenge Mr. wood to bring one ‘sound’ narration to prove this which was after the revelation of the following verse (as it should be remembered that the Prophet followed the law of the Jews and Christians unless there was a revelation which abrogated previous provision relating to that specific issue), which conclusively proves that the punishment for apostacy is not death; rather the apostate’s affair should be left to God to decide:

“Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right way.”

[The Qur’an; 4:138]21

And when read in conjunction with the following verse it leaves no room for anyone who leaves Islam to fear anything but Allah’s questioning on the day of judgement:

“There is no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing. All-Knowing.”

[The Qur’an; 2:257]22

I strongly advise Mr. Wood to read the book which amply but very succinctly rebuts his accusations and proves from traditional Islamic sources that the punishment for apostacy is not death.23

I believe I have adequately proven, through the Islamic concept of ‘Ijtihad’ and the fact that the Qur’an was revealed as a ‘middle-way’ between the excesses of the Jewish Law and the Pacifism of the Christian Law, and, although some fringes of the Muslim Ummah do not do justice to the Qur’an or Islam, the Ummah, largely, is the ‘Ummatun Wasata’ – The people of the middle-way.

The world-war that Mr. Wood has interpreted from the status quo is an over-exaggeration by any standards.

Muslims in London, even after the 7/7 bombings, are no more suspected on the trains and public transport due to our peaceful history and the toleration and correct and fair judgement of the British people. There is no world war going on in London – perhaps Mr. Wood should move from wherever he is if that is his current atmosphere.

Although I agree with the expulsion of extremists from the West, they need not only be Muslims – I propose the same for extremists in every field, politics (the BNP), society (drug-pushers, criminals), but this should be after a free and fair trial of the charges against them – not arbitrarily as in the USA.

The fact that Mr. Wood is seemingly preparing for an all-out war, and even promoting it towards the end of his article is sad to say the least. The intellectuals and the academics are the people society looks to for answers for current problems – supporting the ex-Muslim movement will serve no purpose but to exacerbate the hostilities between the extremists in our midst and the apostates. Rather than doing this, why not propose to support those Muslim movements that propose and campaign openly for the abolition of the death punishment for apostacy as it is blatantly contra to the sources and the texts of Islam!!

Although Islam is wounded, due to extremists within our midst as well as the spiteful rhetoric of the evangelical Christian and atheist right, it will never stoop to the level of the early Makkans (akin to the common-day anti-Islamic right).

The Prophet set such high standards of morals through which the barbaric civilisation of pre-Islamic Arabia was brought out into the world of rights and duties towards fellow mankind – thus if this is the creature that Mr. Wood is so afraid of, I believe that the creatures amongst us are the only signs of progression, stability, peace and morals, and that everyone should have a pet and let the ‘creatures’ run free for the good of humanity!


REFERENCES


1 The author is a graduate in Law L.L.B (hons), L.L.M International Law & International Islamic Law at the University of the West of England (Bristol, UK), and is a Candidate for the Bar of England and Wales at the Inns of Court School of Law. He is also in the process of authoring a book on the ‘Hudood’, The Islamic Criminal Law and International Human Rights Legislation.

2 Challiss McDonough, Cairo, 17 October 2005, at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-10/2005-10-17-voa31.cfm

3 Ibid.,

4 A ‘sound’ narration is a qualified status given to those narrations which reach this status by virtue of their multiple and identical transmission, from more than one companion of the Prophet, who was of good memory, and whose credibility in narrating traditions from the Prophet is unblemished. It should be noted here that traditions that are merely found in a Sahih collection of Hadith (i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, etc) do not automatically qualify as ‘sound’ narrations as many scholars after them have ascertained some of these to be unsound due to certain factors that were not known to the Imams of the Sahih collections.

It is a difficult challenge for Mr. Bruno and Mr. Wood to provide a sound narration without having to formulate new standards of ‘soundness’ in ahadith – Thus they can provide any hadith which is ‘sound’ by the standards of the 6 ‘sound’ collections of Hadith, and I shall attempt to justify them in their historical and societal contexts, God-willing.

5 Farid, M.G., Chapter 2: Verse 144, Supra, n.13

6 See The European

7 Farid, M.G., Chapter 4: Verse 25, Supra, n.13

8 It cannot be used for wives as marriage is a contract between a man and a woman with rights accorded to each, notwithstanding the ‘mahr’ (dowry) which, again is misunderstood amongst non-muslims – it is merely a nuptial gift that has to be given to the bride preferably before marriage – if it was, as is generally perceived amongst critics, a payment for ‘service’ then it would not be obligatory, but would rather depend and fluctuate according to the level and standard of service, whereas this is not the case.

9 According to authoritative Qur’anic Lexicon – Lisaan-ul-‘Arab

10 Ali, M.M., ‘The Religion of Islam’, (1990, The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore) pp.490-495 (at www.aaiil.org)

11 Ali, M.M., Supra, n.10

12 Ali, M.M., Supra, n.10

13 Farid, M.G., The Holy Qur’an – Arabic text with English Translation and Short Commentary (2002, Islam International Publications) at www.alislam.org, pp.182-3

14 Farid, M.G., Supra, n.13

15 Human Rights Watch: World Report 2001 on Yemen, at http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/yemen.html

16 Human Rights Watch: World Report 2001 on Yemen, at http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/yemen.html

17 PETER A. LEE, SHUMEI S. GUO and HOWARD E. KULIN, ‘Age of puberty: Data from the United States of America’ (Abstract) APMIS 2001 109:2 81, at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0463.2001.d01-107.x

18 ‘What is a 'right' age of consent?’ at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3699814.stm (last accessed on 17 May 2007)

19 Supra, n.18

20 Watt, W.M., ‘Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman’, (1961, Oxford University Press) pp.229-onward

21 Farid, M.G., Chapter 4: Verse 138, Supra, n.13

22 Farid, M.G., Chapter 2: Verse 257, Supra, n.13

23 Khan, M.Z., Sir, ‘Punishment of Apostacy in Islam’, at http://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/index.html (last accessed 17 May 2007)