Probing Islam Ali Sina Vs Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

281 Pages·2016·1.34 MB·English

by  Ali Sina

PROBING
ISLAM
A Debate Between
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
and
Khalid Zaheer
vs.
Ali Sina
©2007Permission is granted totranslate,publish anddistribute thisbookby
any means,including forfinancialgain.
About
This document is an extensive and comprehensive debate between Mr. Javed
Ahmad Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistanand Ali
Sina, one of the leading criticsof Islam and the founder of faithfreedom.org.
This debate was arranged when someone invited Mr. Ghamidi to respond to Ali
Sina’s criticisms of Islam. Mr. Ghamidi entered into this debate through his
student, Dr. Khalid Zaheer.
1
An Invitation toDebate
From: Free Inquirer <[email protected]>
Invitation to a Debate
Sep 4, 2006
During the recent years,Islam has become the target of severecriticism and
vilification,not just by members of other religions butalsoby a growing number
of ex-Muslims. The Internet has allowed these critics to come out and speak
their minds at an alarming rate. These criticisms have had devastating effectson
the minds of the Muslim youths,whoareunable to answer the critics on their
ownandare bewildered that the Islamic scholars also have not come forth with
satisfactory answers.
In the interest of unraveling the truth about Islam and clearing the minds of the
young Muslims,I am formally inviting the Islamic critic Ali Sina and the
modern Pakistani ‘state appointed’ Islamic Scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to
engage in a debate on Islam.
ALI SINA
Ali Sina is probably one of the most eminent critics of Islam. Herenounced
Islam after reading the Quranandhas managed to create a movement against
Islam and has grouped together alarge number of ex-Muslims who share his
opinions on Islam. He has challenged Islamicscholars to disprove the fallacies
that he has identified in the Quran andhadith.
JAVED AHMAD GHAMIDI
Javed Ahmad Ghamidiis a respected Islamic Scholar who has been recently
appointed by the Pakistani Government to help facilitate the government in
forming a‘modern’ interpretation of Islam and to doijtihadfor the development
of a cosmopolitan modern Islamic Society. Javed Ghamidi has been under the
tutelage of Amin Ehsan Islahi and idealizes the writings of his teacher with
utmost reverence. Initially expelled from Jamaat-e-Islami due to some difference
with the party’s founder Maududi, Ghamidi has managed to develop a restricted
following of his own. He has been actively involved in the government’s
2
initiative to revamp and restructure Islamicordinances in Pakistan like Hudood
Ordinance and Zina Ordinance. He is also the president of the Al-Mawrid
Institute based in Lahore. Javed Ghamidi also enjoys a good company of his
students who teach in various places in Pakistan. Most notable are Moiz Amjad,
Asif Iftikhar, Khalid Zaheerandothers.Mr. Ghamidi operates through a
network ofDanish Saras(Houses of Learning)across Pakistan and has some
major Islamic Sites to his credit.He also publishes various magazines in Urdu
and English, such asIshraqandRenaissance.
The Challenge to a Debate
This is an invitation to Ali Sina and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi to debate on the
validity of claims made by Islam and whether Islam is atrue religion. Both
parties are invited to provide answers to each other’s arguments.
 The debate will be conducted over emails and will be published on the
Faith Freedom InternationalWebsite for the benefit of common public.
 The points on which the debate shall be done will be agreed upon first
by the two parties to ensure that the core issue is addressed properly.
However it is preferable that Ali Sina’s arguments be thoroughly
studied onhttp://www.faithfreedom.org /challenge.htmto restrict the
debate only to main points of disagreement.
 Complete references should be given by both parties to support their
arguments for thebenefit of the reader.
 Any other points on which both sides would like to agree upon.
The debate is subjected to acceptance on both sides. Failure of acceptance of the
debate by any one side shall be deemed as a failure to provide a logical and
truthful response to supportthe other’sideasorideology.
Dear Free Enquirer,
I published your invitation to announce my acceptance to debate with Mr. Javed
Ahmad Ghamidi. It would be an honor to discus important points of
disagreement on Islam with such an eminent scholar. Please inform Mr.
Ghamidi that I look forward to meet him virtually.
3
I have given countless proofs that Islam is not a true religion. Mr. Ghamidi is
invited to disprove any of my claims, or if he prefers, he could give one single
irrefutable proof that Islam is indeed a true religion sent by God.
In either case, should Mr. Ghamidi disprove any of my charges against
Muhammad and Islam,or provide a single irrefutable proof that Islam is from
God, I promise to publicly acknowledge that I have been mistaken andI shall
removemy site faithfreedom.org permanently. Furthermore I am offeringa
US$50,000 reward to anyone who can showthatIslam is a true religion,orthat
at least my charges against Muhammad are unfounded.
Greetings,
Ali Sina
I am glad to inform the dear readers of FFI that Mr. Ghamidi has expressed his
readiness to discuss Islam with me. I would like to thank Free Inquirer for
making this debate possible and forinviting Mr. Ghamidi and myselfto take
part in thisinformative and educational debate. I trust this would be a very
fruitful discussion. I read some of Mr. Ghamidi's articles and he has made a very
positive impression on me. He is one of Pakistan's most respected scholars and I
am honored that despite hisbusy schedule, he has accepted this invitation. Mr.
Ghamidi is a man of peace and a moderate Muslim. Here is the letter of
acceptance that I received from his office.
Ali Sina.
From: "khalid zaheer" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mr Ghamidi's Response
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006
Dear Free Inquirer
Thank you very much for taking interest in arranging a dialogue between
Mr.Ghamidi and Mr.Ali Sina.
First of all, we would like you to correct this fact: Mr Javed AhmadGhamidi has
not been appointed by the Government of Pakistan to help it in interpreting
Islam in a modern way. Mr. Ghamidi was asked by the President of Pakistan to
4
be a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which is a constitutional body
that suggests responses to various issues confronting the people of Pakistan in
the interpretation of the message of Islam. He accepted that offer in the spirit of
informing the rulers about what he thinks is the right understanding of Islam
quite the same way as he has been informing people about it in the last 35 years.
We welcome the initiative you have taken to enable Mr. Ali Sina to ask Mr.
Ghamidi questions about of Islam that create doubts in his mind about the
truthfulness of the claim that it is a message from God. Mr. Ghamidi has been
performing this task for the last three-and-a-half decades and there is no reason
why we wouldn’t want to share our research with a person like Mr. Sina.
However, what he doesn’t want to do is to engage in a polemic which results in
a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality playing
a game in the garb of an academic debate. The difference between a polemic and
a serious academic exchange is that one is a fiercely contested debate with a
clear objective to not understand and accept what is true but to defeat the
opposing party, while the other engages both parties in a serious exchange of
views with a view to know and acknowledge what the truth is. The participants
are close-minded in the case of theformer and open to truth in the case of the
latter. Mr. Ghamidi hates the former and welcomes the latter.
Finally, before starting this process, we would like Mr. Sina to have a look at the
attached pageswhich outline the basic approachMr.Ghamidi follows in
forming his religious opinions. It is important that the sources of information he
thinks are original for Islamic learning and therefore are the basis of his research
should first be understood to preclude any possibility that Mr. Sina demands
from him explanation of information and concepts that Mr. Ghamidi thinks do
not belong to the original message of Islam.
After Mr. Sina has gone through this message along with the attachedoutline of
Mr. Ghamidi’s approach to understanding the message of Islam, we would
welcome suggestions from your side to convert this opportunity into a
meaningful dialogue.
Khalid Zaheer
(This message has been written in consultation with Mr Ghamidi.)
http://www.khalidzaheer.com/about.html
Dr Khalid Zaheer is an associate professor of Islamic Studies and Ethics at
Lahore University of Management Science (LUMS). He has a teaching
5
experience of morethan 16 years. Prior to joining LUMS, he taught at IBA and
Punjab University for 12 years as a permanent faculty member. He has also
taught at various other educational institutions in Lahore. Dr. Zaheer delivers
lectures in Pakistan Administrative Staff College, National Institute of Public
Administration, Pakistan Audit and Accounts Training Institute, and Lahore
School of Economics. Dr Zaheer’s PhD dissertation focused on Interest-Free
Banking. His areas of interest are Islamic banking and application ofIslamic
principles in contemporary business environment. He is a member of the task
force constituted by the Ministry of Finance to propose measures to convert
government domestic borrowing into project-related financing according to
Shariah injunctions.He is also a member of the Board of Management of the
Pakistan Baitul Mal. He regularly contributes articles to the monthly
Renaissance, a leading religious English journal of the country. Dr. Zaheer has
appeared in many television programs and has also given sermons at mosques.
6
Part I
Ali Sina's response:
2006/09/16
Dear Mr. Khalid Zaheer:
I am glad and honored that Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi has accepted the
invitation of Free Inquirer to debate with me. I am also pleased that you have
agreed to share your knowledge with us and respond to my questions.
Unfortunately,most Muslim scholars are not as open-minded as your good self
and Mr. Ghamidi. They seem to have boycotted me and prefer to ignore me. The
truth is that the questions that I have raised are making the public–both Muslim
and non-Muslim–talk. The reluctance of Muslim scholars to respond to my
questions reflects poorly on them and also on Islam. Therefore,it is heartening
to find a real scholar who is confident enough to not shirk from confronting a
“renegade” apostate like yours truly.
You emphasized on the futility of engaging in “a polemic which results
in a senseless competition of rhetoric wherein the contestants are in reality
playing a game in the garb of an academic debate.”I cannot agree more and let
me add that I admire your positive attitude and your commitment to the truth.
This is indeed a rare quality and it speaks volumes about your, and Mr.
Ghamidi’s,integrity as true scholars. Our goal, as you stated, should be to
unravel the truth and not to childishly try to win the argument at any cost. Since
this debate will be posted on the Internet for everyone to see, I am sure our
readers do not expect anything less from either one of us. An immature behavior
would be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot.
When the objective is to find the truth, talking about “defeating the other party”
is puerile. How can one be defeated when at the end of the debate truth triumphs
and we all learn something? The triumph of the truth means victory for
everyone. The one who learns more is the bigger winner and it is in this sense
alone that I hope to be a winner. Only those who have inflated egos will feel
defeated once proven wrong. I was born ignorant and still I am to a great extent.
Ilearned everything I know from others. I am not ashamed for being ignorant. It
is haughtiness, condescendence and obstinacy that are shameful. You know
better than me that ego acts as a veil to enlightenment and understanding.
7
To know that you don't know is the foundation of all wisdom. Willing to doubt
what you know is the virtue of the sage. Haughtiness and arrogance are the traits
of the fool.
Since we both are after the truth, I am sure this discussion willbea win-win
casefor both of us and also for our readers.
I read the page you sent me as attachment and I fully agree with its content. Let
me assure you that I am not going to present any argument that is not in the
Quran, the Sahih Hadith (Sahih Al-Bukhari,SahihMuslim,andSunan
Abu-Dawud),and the Sira (byIbn Ishaq,Al-Tabari,andIbn Sa’d) as evidence. I
may quote Muslims scholars to make an example but our discussion will be only
on the above-mentioned sources.
Let us begin without further ado.
I will address now Mr. Ghamidi. My first question is aboutintercession.
Dear Mr. Ghamidi:In your bookAl-Bayanyou have made it clear that
intercession, as believed by many Muslims, is a myth. You quoted the following
verses of the Quran to back up your claim:
[A reward] from the Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that lies
between them; the most Gracious–there is no one whohasthe
authoritytospeakonHisbehalf. On the Day when Gabriel and the
angels will stand arrayed [before Him]. [The Day] when only they will
speak whom the most Gracious allows and who speak the truth.(78:37-
38)
In the footnote you wrote the following explanation:“This and the next two
verses strongly negate thephilosophy of mediation and intercession. The angels
whom the polytheists believe to be their intercessors will themselves respectfully
stand before the Almighty on the Day of Judgement. No one will have the
position to speak on behalf of the Almighty. Only they will speak whom the
Almighty permits and they too will not be able to utter anything false.”1
1Shehzad Saleem, Renaissance, “Suras Mursalat–Naba”,
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/seocqur97.html.
8