Soharwardy Responds

The Calgary Herald has published Syed Soharwardy's response to my column.  

 

I'm not sure what Syed's overall point is here, other than to portray himself in very flattering terms and to remind us all what a glorious book the Qur'an is.

 

I'm not sure, however, that he read my column very closely.

 

Syed writes:

 

First of all, some of the things Rob wrote made no sense to me. How can reading the Qur'an be an obstacle? 

Well, Syed, the answer is contained in my column: 

 

Therefore, what's really needed is not burning and not simplistic glorification of religious texts, but rather critical analysis and examination. Both Pastor Jones' event and Imam Soharwardy's event are obstacles to that end.

Being told beforehand that the Qur'an is a book of peace (or a book of violence) and then being expected to interpret it that way is an obstacle to critical analysis.

 

Syed then writes:

 

The debate over how to interpret the Qur'an and how a first time reader walks away with a concise understanding of its meaning is not a trivial science. Let me share with you how I understood the Bible the first time I read verses like these (in the Bible)

Syed then goes on to cite several violent and objectionable passages from the Bible. I'm not sure why - I certainly wasn't trying to defend the Bible.

 

My column did originally mention the Bible - the reference was edited out, for space presumably:

 

The danger of asking people to read the Qur’an – or the Bible for that matter – is that it might generate skepticism more than anything else. 

Although, in fairness to followers of the Bible, I'm not aware of people acting on those particular verses. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Qur'an's violent verses.

 

Syed writes:

 

I believe that the Bible is not a book of violence but when a hatemonger reads verses like these, surely he/she thinks that the Bible is motivating him/her to commit violence. The KKK, the Grand Inquisitors, witch burners and the Crusaders were inspired, in part, by wrong interpretations of the Bible. Even some slave traders (mis) used the Bible to rationalize their behaviour.

But here's my point: that doesn't mean those committing such acts are theologically wrong. It simply means that their interpretation is very much out of favour. A Christian who believes that violators of the Sabbath must be stoned to death might have scripture on their side. Fortunately, no Christians seem to follow that particular command.

 

Soharwardy wants us all to know that he has the correct interpretation of the Qur'an. He may. They again, he may not. It's not for me to say. After I'm done getting his interpretation, should I seek out the views of Omar Abdel-Rahman? After all,he mastered in Quranic studies at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Presumably he knows a thing or two about the Qur'an. Should I then visit the fundamentalist Islamonline.net? There I will learn, for example, that stoning women to death is sanctioned by Islam. Syed will surely tell me that's not the case and that a radical like Abdel-Rahman has it all wrong. I hope he's right, but it's not me he needs to convince.

 

Syed writes:

 

Why does Rob think that the followers of the Qur'an must be homogeneous, and that they should all be very peaceful? Muslims are not a small population, and 1.6 billion Muslims are just as human as Christians. Why should it be a surprise that Muslims have their own KKK and Crusaders?

I obviously do not think followers of the Qur'an should be or are homogeneous. That was part of my point. As I noted:

 

There is one additional reason Soharwardy himself should be wary of the invitation he's extended: how could a book open to such considerable differences in interpretation possibly be God's final set of instructions to humanity?

I suppose it is not a surprise that Muslims have, as Soharwardy calls it "KKK and crusaders" - I would just hope that some day those factions will be confined to obscurity and ancient history.

 

Soharwardy then goes on a bizarre tangent about his human rights complaint against Ezra Levant and the Western Standard magazine, by first defending it, and then offering this:

 

Although I now believe the HRC is not a suitable venue for resolving free speech issues, at that time I filed the complaint I felt it was the right thing to do.

So it was not a mistake but it was? OK, then.

 

My whole point was that we should keep an open mind about religion - and not burn religious texts - but at the same time be able and be free to critically analyze religious texts.

 

Syed Soharwardy - like any other devoted man of religion - is very uncomfortable with any criticism of his faith or his holy book.

 

Fair enough. But in a free country - like this one - we are free to ask questions about religion and even reject it outright.