Table Of ContentPROBING
ISLAM
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
and
Khalid Zaheer
vs.
Ali Sina
© 2007 Permission is granted to translate, publish and distribute this book by
any means, except for financial gain.
0
The file is an extensive and comprehensive debate between Mr. Javed Ahmad
Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistan and Ali Sina,
one of the leading critic of 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.
An invitation to debate
From: Free Inquirer <[email protected]>
Invitation to a Debate
Sep 4, 2006
During the recent years Islam has become the target of sever criticism and
vilification not just by members of other religions but by 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 effect on the
minds of the Muslim youths who unable to answer the critics on their own are
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, an ex-Muslim who
renounced Islam after reading the Quran. Ali Sina has managed to create a
movement against Islam and has grouped together a group of ex-Muslims who
1
share his opinions on Islam. He has challenged Islamic scholars to disprove the
fallacies that he has identified in the Quran and Hadith.
JAVED AHMAD GHAMIDI
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is a respected Islamic Scholar who has been recently
appointed by the Pakistani Government to help facilitate the government in
‘modern’ interpretation of Islam and to do Ijtehad for 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
initiative to revamp and restructure Islamic Ordinances 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 Zaheer & others…Mr. Ghamidi operates through a network
of Danish Saras across Pakistan and has some major Islamic Sites to his credit.
He also publishes various magazines in Urdu and English like Ishraq and
Renaissance.
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 a true religion. Both
parties are invited to provide answers to each other’s arguments.
• Both sides have to accept this invitation
• The debate will be conducted over emails and will be published on the
Faith Freedom International Website 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 on http://www.faithfreedom.org /challenge.htm to restrict the
debate only to main points of disagreement.
• Complete references should be given by both parties to support their
arguments for the benefit of the reader
• Any other points on which both sides would like to agree upon
2
The debate is subjected to acceptance on both sides. Failure of acceptance
of the debate on any one side shall be deemed as a failure to provide a
logical and truthful response to support one’s ideas / ideology
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.
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 and remove
this site permanently. Furthermore I am offering $50,000 US dollars reward to
anyone who can show Islam is a true religion or 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 for inviting Mr. Ghamidi and myself to take
part in this informative 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 his busy 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.
3
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 Ahmad Ghamidi 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
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 while the 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 the former 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 pages which outline the basic approach Ghamidi Sb 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.
4
After Mr. Sina has gone through this message along with the attached outline 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
experience of more than 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 of Islamic
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.
5
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 also 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/dialogue 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.
I learned 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.
6
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 will a win/win for
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 (Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud) and the Sira
(Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn 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. I will start with less contentious subjects and
move on to more difficult ones. My first question is about intercession.
Dear Mr. Ghamidi; In your book Al Bayan you 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 who has the
authority to speak on His behalf. 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 the philosophy 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
You also quoted verse 2:48:
1 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/seocqur97.html
7
And guard yourselves against the day when no soul shall be of use to
another in anyway and no intercession shall be accepted and no
compensation be taken from it and nor will people be helped.
Then you commented: “There is a negation of three things in this verse:
intercession, compensation and help. However, this is just the negation of the
outcome: actually the negation is of the existence of someone who can intercede,
compensate or help. In other words, what is implied is that on that day there will
be no intercession, compensation and help because there will be no person who
would do these.” 2
This sounds reasonable to me. In fact there are many verses in the Quran that
confirm what you said. Here are a few:
O children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed
on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your
guard against a day when NO SOUL shall avail ANOTHER
in the least neither shall any compensation be accepted from
it, nor shall intercession profit it, nor shall they be helped.
(2:122-123)
O you who believe! Spend out of what We have given you
before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither
any friendship nor intercession. (2:254)
Whosoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will
he find, besides God, any protector or helper. (4:123)
And warn with it those who fear that they shall be gathered to
their Lord - there is no guardian for them, nor any
intercessor besides Him - that they may guard (against evil).
(6:51)
Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and
amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But
proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to
ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or
intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or
2 http://www.renaissance.com.pk/MayResearCmp2y4.html
8
reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those
who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts. (6:70)
Allah it is Who created the heavens and the earth, and that
which is between them, in six Days. Then He mounted the
Throne. Ye have not, beside Him, a protecting friend or
mediator. Will ye not then remember? (32:4) 3
The fact that Muhammad has no power to save anyone from Hellfire is
clearly stated in the verse: (39:19)
Is he on whom the word of doom is fulfilled (to be helped), and canst
thou (O Muhammad) rescue him who is in the Fire? (Pickthal)
This point seems to be clear enough! Or is it?
Amazingly, despite all these verses, many Muslims believe that Muhammad has
the power to intercede for them in front of Allah and save them from the Fire on
the Day of Judgment. Ukasha Al-Tayyibi has written a book to prove this very
point. He writes:
"On the Day of Judgment Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will be the only prophet
who will be granted permission to intercede to save mankind from the terrors of
awaiting judgment on the Day of Rising.
[We] must not fail to understand that matters which are great and insignificant,
large or small, are preordained confirmed in the knowledge of Allah. Surely
Allah mighty has decreed and determined the states of the [in]tercessor, and for
whom he intercedes.
Or has taken an analytical approach to prove that [int]ercession can only be
granted by Allah's permission, [t]hat Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will intercede
for mankind at five various levels, i.e. from the crossing of the Sirat to the height
of peoples rank within the garden of paradise.
Each chapter has been carefully researched and examined according to the
Quran and Hadith and by reading this book Muslims and non-Muslims alike will
3 See also: 39:43-44, 82:18-19, 17:56-57
9
Description:1 The file is an extensive and comprehensive debate between Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistan and Ali Sina,
