I guess the the main reason for reading works by Ibn Warraq is best summarized by the following statement by E.Renan.
Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render.
I couldn't agree more with the astutue observation made above. Time and again I have seen the overwhelming effect of Islam on its subjects. Religion for me should be a matter of personal choice, not imposed by the society or culture in any way. Unfortunately it is the exact opposite in most Islamic majority cultures I have lived in. Ibn Warraq's work is a welcome distraction of the alternate narrative. The truth for me should lie somewhere down the middle of the two, Islamic propaganda and anti-Islamic counter propoganda. Ibn Warraq is presents the vanguard of the anti-Islamic propoganda initiative. The main issue with Islam is the all prevailing back-to-the-basics narrative, employed freely by most Islamic apologists repeatedly in arguments with reformists or rationalists within Islam. This is mainly because that Islam has not undergone Reformation like Christianity yet, which leaves the reformists a huge obstacle to overcome. The reformist, rationalist or freethinkers movement within Islam is still very small in numbers, and I fear the only way it will gain strength is in reaction to the rise of fundamentalism within Islam, which may force the silent majority to take sides.
Ibn Warraq has openly challenged notions widely accepted like 'Islam was born in the clear light of history', its greater tolerence, its greater rationality, its snese of brotherhood, its greater spirituality, and the myth that Muhammad was a wise and tolerant lawgiver, providing detailed references quoted from within the Islamic history.
The author suggests that the earlier perception of Islam and Muslims was portrayed as noble by a large section of Westeren intellectuals with strong affliations to relegion themselves.
For me, people like Ibn Warraq prove that there is at the least a hint of skepticim alive and well within Islam, which is very encourouging, for this proves that critical thinking is not completley dead in Islam yet.
The book is very difficult to read as much of the evidence is repeating, it lacks proper a editorial job thus becomes pretty similar to the authors take on a 'confusing Koran'. It is nowhere close to Betrand Russell's great work of 'Why I am not a Christian' though.
Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render.
I couldn't agree more with the astutue observation made above. Time and again I have seen the overwhelming effect of Islam on its subjects. Religion for me should be a matter of personal choice, not imposed by the society or culture in any way. Unfortunately it is the exact opposite in most Islamic majority cultures I have lived in. Ibn Warraq's work is a welcome distraction of the alternate narrative. The truth for me should lie somewhere down the middle of the two, Islamic propaganda and anti-Islamic counter propoganda. Ibn Warraq is presents the vanguard of the anti-Islamic propoganda initiative. The main issue with Islam is the all prevailing back-to-the-basics narrative, employed freely by most Islamic apologists repeatedly in arguments with reformists or rationalists within Islam. This is mainly because that Islam has not undergone Reformation like Christianity yet, which leaves the reformists a huge obstacle to overcome. The reformist, rationalist or freethinkers movement within Islam is still very small in numbers, and I fear the only way it will gain strength is in reaction to the rise of fundamentalism within Islam, which may force the silent majority to take sides.
Ibn Warraq has openly challenged notions widely accepted like 'Islam was born in the clear light of history', its greater tolerence, its greater rationality, its snese of brotherhood, its greater spirituality, and the myth that Muhammad was a wise and tolerant lawgiver, providing detailed references quoted from within the Islamic history.
The author suggests that the earlier perception of Islam and Muslims was portrayed as noble by a large section of Westeren intellectuals with strong affliations to relegion themselves.
For me, people like Ibn Warraq prove that there is at the least a hint of skepticim alive and well within Islam, which is very encourouging, for this proves that critical thinking is not completley dead in Islam yet.
The book is very difficult to read as much of the evidence is repeating, it lacks proper a editorial job thus becomes pretty similar to the authors take on a 'confusing Koran'. It is nowhere close to Betrand Russell's great work of 'Why I am not a Christian' though.
No comments:
Post a Comment