So, Raymond Ibrahim decided to respond to my refutation of his false claim that Tawriya gave Muslims open and unlimited permission to “creatively lie”. 1st off, Shadid means strong , firm, vigorous.(English-Arabic translator dictionary By F.Steingass pg.881) He attempts to mis-translate the meaning of my name, I assume to once again convey the idea of the big, bad, evil,” muzloom boogie man”.In my article he also takes issue with what he claims are “grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)”Thank you Raymond, although you over exaggerated 1 or 2 typos and left out apostrophes as if my entire article was riddled with grammatical and punctuation errors which it was not. The issue is about tawriya and not english grammar and punctuation. Stick to the topic, snob!
Raymond claims :
“Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya.”
No Raymond , you addressed it because I clearly exposed your lies and attempts to demonize and spread mis-trust of Muslims with such a claim. I exposed how you omitted key statements made by the sources you claim to cite , that totally refute your claim. For those who missed it Raymond claimed that ,”tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. Raymond totally ignores this, and instead makes a strawman , claiming I failed to disprove the doctrine. What I did Raymond was disprove your claim about the alleged doctrine, which was that tawriya allowed Muslims to lie in all circumstances. The sources cited clearly did not say it permitted lying and limited the use of tawriya rather than giving an open-ended permission for its use. I even exposed how Scholars discouraged its use such as Ibn Tamiyah who’s view was that it is haraam( not allowed) to resort to deliberate ambiguity if there is no reason or need to do so. Such statements Raymond omitted from his article , and I called him on it.
Raymond goes on and says of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Wrong, once again the very sources he claimed to use say other wise and even gave universal examples of what would be considered injustice. ( i.e If it is a means of taking something wrongfully or depriving someone of their rights, then it is haraam( NOT ALLOWED) in that case. This is the guideline in this matter).
He attempts to give an example of how Islamic Law and western law view right and wrong. He gives the example of Apostacy and says western law acknowledges religious freedom, tell that to the Muslim women in France who want to wear hijab, or the Muslims in Switzerland banned from building Mosque with minarets etc. And he is wrong , Islam does allow freedom of religion.Sure Raymond, the West wont execute you for apostacy in religion, but they will execute you or imprison you for TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES against their secular beliefs and systems. Is that really a different view on right and wrong? The point is ,in the West they deem it correct to execute you for leaving and going against their secular beliefs and systems.
He then goes on to claim that I distracted the issue by making irrelevant points such as pointing out how he omitted the fact that Sheikh Al-Munajjid discouraged the use of tawiriya by stating “excessive use of puns leads to lying”. How does this distract from the issue? It proves that your claim, Mr. Ibrahim that this doctrine is encouraged is false and yet again exposed how you left out key statements that refute your claim.
Seems the only one guilty of “creative lying” is you Mr. Ibrahim. He continues and says I brought a ridiculous argument when I exposed how he mis-used a reference that was about Taqiyah and not tawriya. What is ridiculous is Raymond using a source that is clearly about taqiyah to try to make a bogus argument about tawriya. And yes it is true ,that taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger , he said not true. I ‘ll debate you on that , you are wrong!
Better for you , Raymond to prove such a narration actually came from Muhammad than to be upset that I exposed how you used a reference that had nothing to do with tawriya.Next Raymond is upset that I exposed how he mis-used a hadith and drew a false conclusion , not supported by any Islamic teaching. Raymond makes a fool of himself asking what is the purpose of the hadith which tells one what to do if they pass gas while in the middle of prayer. The purpose is clear. It tells you what to do when you pass gas in the middle of prayer. The fact that the hadith states you hold your nose and leave the prayer lets everyone know who passed gas. It’s obviously the person that held their nose and left the prayer is the one responsible for the smell, thus his false claim that some one else is left to take the blame is nonsense.
In light of the above, its clear to the reader that Raymond is just upset that I exposed his deception and clear omission of key statements from his sources that refute his claim concerning tawriya. No where do I accept in my article that Islam permits lying nor do the sources he cited say so, which is why it was warned that excessive use of puns leads to lying. If it was understood that tawriya condones lies why say excessive use of it leads to lying then? Would it not already be lying? Thus Raymond fails at his rebuttal.Its Raymond who strains as one constipated to make a rebuttal not me. I clearly exposed your lies and acts of omission.
Again, make no mistake, these claims are just refurbished old Nazi propaganda claims once used against Jews. In fact today you can still find such claims on the internet still propagated by Neo Nazis and White racist groups. Many of these bigots and racist will in fact link to Raymond’s article as proof to justify their bigotry against Muslims. Way to go Raymond. Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher would be proud.
Categories: Responses to anti-Islamic Polemics