Victory for Sharia!

Sami Zaatari

 

Sometime ago Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi came out with a blog article about how some Saudi women were burned alive because of a lack of modesty, Nabeel titled his article as ?Sharia in practice' I took issue with this title because for starters Sharia does not call for the burning of immodest women, so how could Nabeel say this is Sharia in practice? Visit the following article to re-cap the issue at hand:

http://muslim-responses.com/Sharia_and_Fire/Sharia_and_Fire_

Nabeel has come out with a reply, which can be accessed on this link:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/03/responding-to-sami-zaatari-case-study.html

Nabeel's latest reply is the ending of this affair, which solidly proves everything I stated in my last rebuttal, Nabeel writes the following:

Problem Number 1 - Did I ever claim that according to Sharia, a Muslim should burn immodest women? No! Nowhere in my article did I claim this. My article was not titled "Sharia law states women should burn for immodesty". It was "Sharia in practice: Letting Muslim girls burn for lack of modesty". Sami grossly misinterpreted my words.

As anyone with basic English interpretation skills and rudimentary honesty would conclude from the title alone, the article was not about how Sharia should be practiced, but rather Sharia in practice, and how it has resulted in the immolation of young girls. This is an undeniable fact, as undeniable as the fact that the Saudi government forgave the mutaween for their decision to let the girls die.

RESPONSE

Now Nabeel wants to play word and semantic games, ladies and gentlemen, if Nabeel truly believed ANY of what he just said, then he would have titled his initial article as follows: SAUDI SHARIA IN PRACTICE, rather, Nabeel titled his article as SHARIA in practice, hence his long response about basic English understanding is meaningless, Nabeel attacked the Sharia law in GENERAL, not in a specific manner, the title always influences the readers and how they perceive things, this is a basic fact of English as well.

Secondly, Nabeel is openly contradicting himself, he admits there is no Islamic ruling that states such a ruling, yet he says he simply said Sharia in practice, hold up a minute, how can you say this is Sharia IN PRACTICE when Shariah HAS NO SUCH RULINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE! It makes no sense people, and Nabeel even knows it makes no sense. Nabeel needs to admit that he is wrong and made a false statement, simple as that, this is not Sharia in practice at all, hence Nabeel is still propagating false info, and he is now admitting it as well, because he has acknowledged that no such ruling exists, yet he persists in saying this is Sharia in practice, this is clear distortion my friends.

So my friend Nabeel, it is very simple, re-title your initial article to the following: Saudi style Sharia in practice, not the Quranic or Hadith Sharia ruling.

Thirdly, this isn't even a Saudi style Sharia in practice, just because the Saudi government forgave the religious officers does not mean this is a codified law, hence Nabeel is still dead wrong! This was the act of a few men who decided to make their own ruling at that specific time, it is not part of the Saudi Shariah system.

Nabeel goes on to write:

Problem Number 4 - Finally, Sami states that I am simply spreading false propaganda. How can this be the case, when my whole article simply consisted of reporting an event which even Time Magazine reports? This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.

RESPONSE

Wow, so after all of that, Nabeel still insists this is a practice of Islam! So notice how Nabeel has directly contradicted himself within his very own article, he starts his article by saying he never stated Sharia calls for such things etc, yet now he is saying this IS a practice of Islam, hence he IS saying Sharia calls for such a punishment!

I challenge Nabeel to bring forth his evidence. It's more ironic that Nabeel claims he isn't doing propaganda, just reporting the news, really? Is that why you attribute this news to Islam, when no Islamic text calls for such a thing? Sorry Nabeel, that is propaganda.

Maybe Nabeel will now say he is not saying Islam calls for such things, and that we should understand basic English, nay, I send this advise back to Nabeel because I think it his him who does not understand the basics of the English language. Nabeel has clearly attributed this act to Islam, here it is again:

This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.

How can this be a practice of Islam when Islam calls for no such thing, if Nabeel wants to give English lessons then he should be more clear and say this is a specific wrong version of Islam that is being practiced, not make the open general claim, and then come back at me saying I don't understand basic English, when it is quite the opposite. I suggest Nabeel goes and learns the basic English differences of a general  and a specific statement, when Nabeel makes such an open general statement as the above, it leaves the impression that this is an Islamic practice, however so if he went into specifics, it would give the clearer picture, and let everyone know this isn't real Islam, rather it is a twisted version that has no basis from the Quran or hadith, this my friend Nabeel is basic English,  I would be more than happy to teach you more on this as I am a student of English!

Lastly, It is not my duty to understand Nabeel's mind, I'm sorry Nabeel, when you are writing a paper, then it is your duty to express yourself in a proper manner, the English you are using conveys the picture that Islam does sanction the following teaching, hence don't come back at me saying I don't understand the English, no, it is you who is not expressing your opinion in a proper fashion, and it is you who is using the wrong English to express what your mind is thinking, hence this is your problem, not mine, if you want people to understand you, then write what you actually mean, which is that this is a wrong type of Islam that is being practiced, it is so wrong that it is not even Islam in the first place, as no Quran or Hadith backs such a ruling in the first place.

What does sadden me is that I believe Nabeel is PURPOSELY doing this, leaving general open statements that give this distorted picture of Islam, it would have been so easy for Nabeel to have said He doesn't attribute this to Islamic teachings, rather he attributes this to some men who have made their own Islamic teaching, which has no basis. Would that have been so hard to state, off course not, and everyone knows that the two statements would have a much different impression on the readers, hence Nabeel let us stop with the English games, because the English language is not helping you out, its making things worse for you.

So at the end of the day, after all this English talking, the case is closed, Sharia law does not call for women to be burned for immodesty, victory for the truth, and victory for Sharia.

Lastly, Nabeel conveniently ignored the downside to his argument, which is that the Bible has rulings which call for the burning of women if they meet a specific crime. Perhaps Nabeel can enlighten us on that Biblical teaching, please Nabeel, explain this to us:

Lev 21:9  And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Are you against the burning of women or what?

And Allah Knows Best!

www.muslim-responses.com