The March 9, 2013, edition of The Daily News in the opinion section had an article titled "Sources of knowledge" by an unsigned author.
There are half truths about the article that may confuse 99.9 percent of the reading masses.
A friend of mine in Ohio, and expert in radical Islam talked to me as we tried to clear the air and truth about this article.
The author starts by saying, "I have read some articles, and found them to be good. I believe that a good writer who sees all that happens and analyzes it must be constantly in touch with the truthful sources of knowledge."
"In today's world there is a lot written and spoken on Islam-Muslims. But it is one sided. Hardly will you see a Muslim to express his views. (The other side that helps on reaches the truth)."
This is mixture of truth and error in that statement. Generally it is true that you do not hear from everyday Muslims in the newspaper. Yet, there are dozen of organizations which do express their views from the expression of the group as a whole and each local chapter has a website as well.
C.A.I.R. "Counsel on American Islamic Relations" is well known for expressing their Islamic view. There are thousands of Islamic centers worldwide and almost everyone has its own website. There also seems to be hundreds of thousands of websites authored by imams of knowledgeable Muslims in which they too express their Islamic views. So, it would seem that the dearth (absence) of Islamic views express in the newspapers is a choice by Muslims.
The article continues by saying, "Neither the experts nor media are aware of the other side."
This is so far from the truth that it is blind.
The only possible way this could be true is if the author of this article has spoken to every expert on Islam and every media outlet. This is merely rhetoric (expression) and not fact. If the reader is willing to examine the works of those who criticize Islam you will find that most of their works are filled with copious references to the Qur'an and Sunnah as well as commentaries on whatever is being discussed.
I do grant the author of this article that the media does seem to be unaware of Islamic teachings. The main stream media in America, (NBC, CBS, MSN, etc.) speak about Islam often; but never criticize the movement. Many would argue the reason for this is that the main stream media is filled with progressives, and progressives and Islam have a tender history together. Well, that is until Islam becomes dominate.
The article continues;
"Everyone loves to criticize sharia but, hasn't read the Quran, or the Hadith the basis of it.
This too is a fallacy; the author claims that every critic has never read the Qur'an or the Hadith. But how does he know this? Every critic who has criticized Islam has quoted passages from the Qur'an and Hadith. Many of them have also quoted authoritative imams and scholars to go along with the passage(s) quoted. But the simple response to this allegation is, has the author of this article spoken to every critic of Islam to determine this?
Interestingly, the author does not reveal his name or his sect and the reason this is interesting is because he leaves out a vital piece of Islamic authority, the Sira.
The Sunnah is composed of the Hadith (sayings) and Sira or Mohammed's biography. The Qur'an commands Muslims 70 times or so to follow Mohammed explicitly and the Sira was created so that a Muslim can do just that.
It is true that some non-Muslims criticize Islam and they have not read the Qur'an and Sunnah. Yet, there are many, many Muslims who love to criticize Christianity and do not read the Bible. The author is merely attempting to persuade (influence) the reader from ever reading the writings of critic of Islam by disparaging his character. This happens when a person no longer has a valid response to a critic's inquiry.
The article continues, "I invite you to read Quran's translation (Quran is verbatim word for God told to Prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel and preserved until today in both text and language, same in all times, same in all places and same for all sects)."
The question the author raises are a valid question. For a Muslim and Christian the answer to these questions are of supreme importance for how they are addressed will determined a person's faithfulness and afterlife. Nevertheless, the author is incorrect, the text of the Qur'an has been preserved the same without change for all time. In fact, the Qur'anic text has been altered.
During Caliph Utham's reign disputes arose about the Qur'anic text. He had Islamic scholars round up all the various texts and from them he had them create one text burning all the rest. In fact, Islamic sources provide evidence of missing chapters, (Surahs) passages, verses and phrases.
More on this may be found at 4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953021.
Equally, when the first Koranic quotations appeared on coins and inscription toward the end of the seventh century, they show divergences from the canonical text. These appear trivial from the point of view of content, but the fact that they appear in such formal contexts as these go badly with the notion that the text has already been frozen. (M Cook, Muhammad 74.)
Two imminent scholars, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, argue per suavely that, "They regard the whole established version of Islamic history down to at lest the time of Abdal-Malik (685-705) as a later fabrication, and reconstruct the Arab Conquest, and the formation of the Caliphate, as a movement of peninsular Arabs who had been inspired by Jewish messianism to try to reclaim the Promised Land. In this interpretation, Islam emerged as an autonomous religion and culture only within the process of a long struggle for identity among the disparate people yoked together by conquest: Jacobite Sysrians, Nestorian Aramaeans in Iraq, Copts, Jews, and finally Peninsular Arabs." (RS Humphreys, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry, pg (84-85)
The author continues, "Sayings of Prophet Muhammad as a person are called Hadith and don't include the sayings of his companions nor those after him. His coming is prophesied in all divine books (Flindu's Vedas, Old and New Testament in dasatirs of Zoroasfrins) but he is not God and not worshipped "
The author declares that Mohammed's coming is prophesied in all the holy books which must include the Bible or in Islam the Taurat and Injil. A good conservative Old and New Testament scholar would argue. (1) This claim is fallacious and (2) that those who make such a claim have not studied either set of Scripture.
Can a Muslim have a non-Muslim friend? No (Qur-an 4:139; 5:51, 57). Does Islam force itself on others? Yes. Mohammed stated he was commanded to fight people until all accepted Allah (Muslim: C9b 1N31) Does Islam want to eliminate non-Islamic religions? Yes. (Qur'an 8:39)
Does Islam Believe what Jesus claims about himself? No. Jesus claimed to be Deity. (John 8; 24) Islam rejects Jesus' claim (Soorat-un-Nisaa: 48)
Does the Bible mention Mohammed? No! There is no passage that mentions Mohammed by name, title or association. So any person who claims the Bible mentions Mohammed has (1) not read the Bible (2) studied the Bible or (3) listens to some who makes unfound assumption. So, the question is, who is it that does not truly know the other's text?
For the shocking truth on Islam please go to www.actforamerica.org.
Karl Ben Weber