After being defeated in several debates against secularists, I offered my secularist opponents a conditional surrender, admitting that, while I had been unable to defend some arguments, other aspects of the Quran and hadith were still defensible. My opponents rightly refused this offer. Now I have come to realise that it was untenable to hold on to selective interpretations while admitting that much of the apologetics I had believed in was flawed. To do so was to undermine the objective of the debates I freely chose to engage in: that is, to seek truth and challenge the veracity of religious claims through rigorous examination and rational discourse. A conditional surrender was antithetical to the comprehensive nature of this intellectual pursuit.

My opponents insisted on an unconditional surrender, an admission that all of my arguments in defence of Islam had been thoroughly debunked. Eventually, I relented, and I am glad I did, not only for reasons of intellectual integrity but also for the freedom from religion that such an admission granted me.

Below is an edited copy of a transcript from another of these debates. This debate concerned the ‘daḥa deception’, as many secularists call it: the view, popular in Muslim circles about ten years ago, that the word daḥa in verse 30 of surah 79 of the Quran, which contains an account of Allah’s creation of the world, refers to the Earth being shaped like an ostrich egg, thus indicating a spherical Earth and demonstrating the Quran’s scientific validity. This, of course, was apologist gibberish. I hope others can benefit from seeing how I was disabused of this notion.

The daḥa debate

Jalal: It has been argued that the Quran says the Earth is flat. But, in fact, the meaning of the verse with the Arabic word ‘daḥa’ suggests that the Earth is round, as far as I can remember.

Secularist: That argument has already been debunked, my friend. Go check the lexicons—daḥa has the connotation of the nest that an ostrich makes (i.e. a flattened round surface) within which to place its eggs, as Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon makes clear. It is not a round egg. It is actually more proof that the Quran talks of a flat Earth.

Jalal: But it also means making a thing round. As you know from previous discussions, many Arabic words have multiple meanings. You have to choose the right one for the context. And daḥa in the sense of making a thing round is the proper meaning in this context!

Allow me to double-check this claim by looking it up. … I see that the meaning is to flatten a thing. Nothing points to making things round. And yes, there is also a meaning for a nest, you are right. Admittedly, the flattening meaning makes more sense in the context.

…

OK. But the process of flattening something is applied to something that is originally not flat. That is why a bird flattens a round structure of sticks to make the nest. Now, God created the Earth as a nearly round structure—the Earth is not perfectly round—and that made it look like a flat object to us. This goes more with the context of the verse.

Secularist: The ‘rounding’ that an ostrich performs is not the flattening of a mound into a round shape. Actually, they dig out a flat area to make a disk-like shape to sit in. You can see some good pictures of what I mean here. So the Quran is using a word referring to a flattened disc and not a round spherical shape. This is why the classical exegetes of the Qur’an describe the Earth as flat. For example, the leading Sunni authority Ibn Kathir said in the 14th century that the Earth is like a building with floors stacked on top of each other and that heaven is akin to a dome over the Earth—i.e. the Earth is a flattened disk.

The reason that some earlier Muslims speak of a spherical earth is that they were guided by the astronomers of the time (the spherical nature of the Earth had been known for centuries). However, the increasing trend of literalism in understanding the Quran and hadith meant that, eventually, the flat Earth model prevailed. So, by the 10th century, we find the leading Islamic exegete al-Suyuti saying this:

As for His [God’s] words sutihat, ‘laid out flat’, this on a literal reading suggests that the earth is flat, which is the opinion of most of the scholars of the [revealed] Law, and not a sphere as astronomers (ahl al-hay’a) have it, even if this [latter] does not contradict any of the pillars of the Law.

Notice that this says that going from the text of the Quran alone indicates a flat Earth. Muslims ended up moving away from the scientific ideas of astronomers and returned to the simpler Quranic flat Earth model.

In summary, the lexicons and the most revered exegetes all point to the Quran describing a flat Earth. This shows that daḥa does not refer to an egg shape, nor does it mean the Quran describes the Earth as spherical. You have even admitted yourself that it is not a reference to an egg. Yet popular Islamic apologists like Zakir Naik still insist on this meaning, thus misleading their audiences.

Jalal: OK. 

Secularist: OK what? Tell the world about your jihad by word/tongue/debate. 

Jalal: OK, you are right. 

Secularist: Accept your defeat loudly and clearly, please. We answered you using your own Islamic sources. 

Jalal: I accept my defeat in this debate and I admit my inability to defend the daḥa argument.

My secularist opponent was a little ruthless towards the end there, but I am happy that he was. You can see how I flailed during that debate, and it took a forthright rebuttal to make me admit and accept the truth of my defeat.

Today is Ashura, an Islamic day of commemoration. For Sunni Muslims, it celebrates Islamic triumphs, while for Shia Muslims, it is a day of mourning, a remembrance of defeat and loss. The latter is more appropriate: today, I have shown that jihad by word is as much a failure as jihad by the sword. Jihadists by word can be made to surrender, too: I once vowed to defeat secularists in debate, yet here I am on Ashura, celebrating the defeat of Islamic apologetics. Robust debate did more than just open my mind: it freed it.

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

The post Jihad by Word #3: The ‘daḥa’ deception; or, the Earth is not shaped like an ostrich egg in the Quran appeared first on The Freethinker.

When I was preparing to become a Muslim scholar, one of the arguments I focused on countering was the argument that dhimmis—nonbelievers with legal protections in an Islamic state—were humiliated by Muslims. By addressing this, I aimed to show that Islam is a religion of peace. I believed I could win this debate despite its difficulty.

However, my argument was debunked. Below is my defence of jizyah and a summary of a debate I had with a secularist, where I was defeated using logic and Islamic sources.

My defence of jizyah

Jizyah was a tax paid by dhimmis in Islamic states (not to be confused with zakat, a tax paid by Muslims only). The jizyah rate varied based on the financial status of the dhimmi. Roughly speaking:

A. The richest dhimmis paid four dinars (gold coins).

B. Moderately wealthy dhimmis paid 20 dirhams of silver.

C. Those unable to pay did not pay anything.

This shows that the levying of jizyah was not intended to humiliate dhimmis: it was a fairly administered tax. Quran verse 9:29 indicates that only those capable of paying should do so. Though zakat was generally lower, jizyah still differentiated between dhimmis with different incomes. This fiscal system was fair, especially in an era with minimal tolerance for different faiths.

There were various valid justifications for jizyah:

1. The Islamic state uses zakat and jizyah payments for services, like security, benefiting all residents.

2. The extra amount of jizyah compared to zakat compensates for the dhimmis’ freedom to practice their faith. Countries today legitimately use citizenship rules to define rights and relationships among citizens, refugees, and immigrants.

3. The gradual increase in payment is based on financial capability, with the rich paying more and the poor paying nothing.

Do these not strike you as fair points?

Additionally, Islamic history shows that the Prophet forgave his enemies, so why would he humiliate dhimmis? Here, for example, is one of the authentic hadiths:

‘Al-Qasim ibn Salam reported: When his enemies came to the Ka’bah, they were holding onto its door and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “What do you say? What do you think?” They said three times, “We say you are the son of our brother.” The Prophet said, “I say to you as Joseph said to his brothers: No blame upon you today. Allah will forgive you, for he is the most merciful of the merciful.” In another narration, the Prophet said to them, “Go, you are free.”’

Another example of Islamic mercy is Umar’s Assurance, a document written by Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab to the people of the recently captured Jerusalem in AD 637 or 638. This assurance guaranteed the safety of Christian churches and property, and it is said that the Caliph, despite being invited to do so, did not pray inside the Church of the Resurrection so as not to establish a precedent which might threaten the church’s Christian status.

The medieval Muslim scholar Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, in his book Ahkām ahl al-dhimma, provided copious evidence that the humiliation of nonbelievers was not intended in Islamic states and that dhimmis were well treated (see, for example, his interpretations of Quran 9:29 and Umar’s Assurance). 

Further, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that:

‘During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime, the jizyah was not imposed on non-Muslim tribes consistently. For example, the Nubians of North Africa, despite being non-Muslim, were exempted; instead they entered into a trade agreement (baqt) with Muslims.

In the period following Muhammad’s death, the jizyah was levied on non-Muslim Arab tribes in lieu of military service. Performance of military service earned an exemption; for example, under the second caliph, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, the Jarājimah tribe was exempted when it agreed to serve in the army. The non-Muslim poor, the elderly, women, serfs, religious functionaries, and the mentally ill generally did not pay any taxes. Early sources state that under the first caliphs poor Christians and Jews were instead awarded stipends from the state treasury, which was funded largely by monies derived from the zakat, the obligatory tax paid by Muslim men and women of financial means, and from the jizyah paid by non-Muslim men of means.’

The principles instilled by the Prophet and Umar can still be felt today in regions where dhimmis and Muslims live in peace and mutual respect. In short: jizyah was a legitimate tax administered fairly and Islamic principles allowed for peaceful coexistence between believers and nonbelievers.

The debate

Such was my case for the defence when I engaged in a debate with a secularist on the issue.

My opponent questioned the three levels of jizyah I mentioned and the context around ‘humiliation’ in its payment. He argued that the terms used in Quran 9:29 imply subjugation and belittlement and questioned the validity of my interpretation of the verse.

I emphasised the importance of consulting the original Arabic text, explaining that ‘عن يد’ (ean yad) translates roughly to ‘out of hand’, or ‘those who can pay’, indicating flexibility in payment, not humiliation, and noted that many interpreters assert that the verse speaks of commitment rather than degradation. My opponent remained sceptical, insisting that ‘صاغرون’ (saghirun; roughly, ‘slavish’) implies humiliation and that the verse pertains to conquering non-Muslim lands.

The debate shifted to the concept of dhimmitude, the protected status of non-Muslims under Islamic governance. I clarified that ‘dhimmi’ means ‘protected person’ and that dhimmis’ feelings of subjugation stemmed from their having to live under Islamic law in general, not from any particular mistreatment. My opponent countered with examples from the time of Umar’s Assurance, highlighting restrictions imposed on Christians and arguing that these were humiliating. He pointedly asked if Muslims would find similar rules degrading.

I pointed out that the authenticity of Umar’s Assurance is debated, with some attributing it to later jurists rather than the Caliph himself. My opponent argued that the legitimacy of Islamic laws does not rest solely on the character of political leaders but on the consensus of jurists.

I asserted that true Islamic law is derived from the Quran and authentic hadith. My opponent questioned who determines the proper understanding of these texts, noting that scholars diverge widely in their views. I mentioned that consensus among scholars is crucial but acknowledged that different groups might have their own consensus. He cited legal manuals from various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, all of which included humiliating conditions for dhimmis, reinforcing his point that such practices are integral to Islamic law.

My opponent maintained that Islamic legal texts mandate even the poor to pay jizyah and that the humiliation is inherent in the laws themselves.

I argued that the Quran should be the primary source of Islamic law, and it contains no explicit command to humiliate dhimmis. My opponent pointed out that Islamic jurisprudence combines Quranic text, hadith, and juristic consensus, and that these have long produced discriminatory laws. He quoted various scholars and legal manuals to prove that systemic humiliation is part of established Islamic law, showing that my argument was insufficient against historical consensus.

To counter, I cited Ibn al-Qayyim’s work, which denies historical evidence for such humiliations in jizyah collection. Ibn al-Qayyim interprets the dhimmis’ feelings of being low or sad as arising from a feeling akin to paying taxes one disagrees with rather than stemming from discrimination and humiliation. My opponent remained unconvinced, emphasising that the majority consensus among jurists includes humiliating conditions and cannot be dismissed by a single scholar’s opinion.

Towards the end of the debate, I acknowledged the diversity of interpretations and the rigorous methods scholars use to authenticate hadith and derive legal rulings. My opponent insisted that the established body of Islamic law, including its dhimmi-humiliating aspects, is backed by centuries of juristic consensus and cannot be easily refuted. Despite my attempts to present a more humane and flexible understanding of jizyah, my opponent’s extensive citations from legal texts and historical practices ultimately made a compelling case for the systemic nature of these conditions, highlighting the challenge of reconciling ideal Islamic principles with historical jurisprudence.

I have now accepted my full and decisive defeat in this debate and my inability to defend the Islamic argument.

As a penance for this and many other defeats in debate, I have now shaved my beard and abandoned Islam. I have also paid my own form of jizyah to secular societies—a much better use of money, I think! I hope that by sharing these stories of my defeats I can help others to counter Islamic apologetics—and perhaps even help some Muslims to go on the same journey of enlightenment as I have.

Jalal’s ‘statement of defeat’ by secularists in debate can be found here.

Related reading

The need to rekindle irreverence for Islam in Muslim thought, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias on Islam, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

When does a religious ideology become a political one? The case of Islam, by Niko Alm

Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape, by Azad

From religious orthodoxy to free thought, by Tehreem Azeem

Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

The post Jihad by Word #2: how I could not defend jizyah appeared first on The Freethinker.

As revealed in the new review by the Independent Advisor on Social Cohesion and Resilience Sara Khan, the teacher was utterly failed by the school, police, and political authorities. Their response exposed a severe lack of understanding of the seriousness of blasphemy accusations, and only succeeded in validating and encouraging the demands of the mob.

This is particularly true of Batley Grammar School (BGS), which decided to issue an apology to the parents of every pupil after a single menacing phone call. The apology provided no context or explanation for the lesson’s content, and leaders did not consult the religious studies (RS) teacher before sending it.

This attempt at appeasement actually invited further pressure, legitimising religious outrage by accepting there was something that required an apology. Now faced with agitators outside the school gates, and the sharing of the teacher’s image and personal details online, the school capitulated. Senior leaders denounced the use of the image at a televised press conference, and met several self-appointed ‘community leaders’ – none of whom were parents. They also suspended the teacher, isolating him by preventing communication with his colleagues.

The effect of this ordeal upon the teacher and his family has been severe. He remains in hiding, unable to return home, and living with the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts. His children missed months of education, and had to sleep on the floor of squalid temporary accommodation.

Galling as it is to see Batley Multi Academy Trust stand by its actions in the Khan review, schools are under-equipped and under-qualified to manage situations like those faced by BGS. Far less forgivable are the failures of those responsible for defending our democratic freedoms: the local authority Kirklees Council, local MP Tracy Brabin, and West Yorkshire Police.

Kirklees Council, which issued no public statement of any kind during the protests, told the Khan review that they took this decision to maintain their relationship with the local Muslim community. This illustrates an alarmingly ignorant view of Muslims as a homogenous group, with a single viewpoint to which one must defer in the interests of cohesion. In reality, a plurality of views exists amongst British Muslims on every issue and, as the Khan review makes clear, many Muslim parents at Batley did not support the protests.

Brabin’s statement at the time describing protestors’ ‘upset and offence’ as ‘understandable’ and ‘predictable’ betrayed the same ignorance, and a bigotry of low expectations towards British Muslims. Though she issued a meekly worded criticism of the threats and intimidation directed towards the RS teacher some days after her first statement, it was tempered by a simultaneous welcome of the school’s apology and ‘recognition of the offence caused’. Like the council, Brabin validated religious hysteria about a drawing of a human being and sold out the right to free expression in the hope of a quiet life.

The police’s appalling response to the protests is only comprehensible in light of comments made by one anonymous officer to the Khan review, describing how police inadvertently support extremist preachers in the misguided belief that they have a positive relationship with a minority community. Even so, one would have thought the murder of Samuel Paty—beheaded in Paris for teaching a very similar lesson to the one delivered in Batley just six months earlier— would have led police to take the threat to the RS teacher very seriously. Instead, they treated the protests as a low-risk ‘neighbourhood incident’, a baffling decision given the blasphemy-motivated murders of Asad Shah in Glasgow and Jalal Uddin in Rochdale in 2016.

In the Khan review, experienced police officers also criticised the failure to make clear that any threatening, harassing, or intimidatory behaviour against the RS teacher and other school staff would not be tolerated, and that perpetrators would be subject to the full force of the law. To date, no arrests have been made for the harassment the Batley RS teacher experienced.

The events at Batley are not unique. In 2023, a pupil received death threats after a Quran was lightly damaged at a Wakefield school. Once again so-called community leaders used this as an opportunity to whip up tension, leading to representatives from the school, West Yorkshire Police, and the boy’s mother appearing at a local mosque in order to ease tensions. As with Batley, every effort was made to accommodate, appease, and defuse, with very little made to challenge.

In these responses, we see the success of dogmatic religious activists in convincing public bodies that they represent the wider Muslim community, and how the privileging of religious sentiments throughout public life makes it more difficult to challenge fundamentalism.

Only now do some of the lessons of these events finally seem to be sinking in. Action to challenge the fundamentalist threat to our schools is long overdue, and the Khan review’s recommendation to form a specialist unit to support schools which find themselves targeted by religious thugs is a step in the right direction.

But it is not enough. Until we succeed in denying the concept of blasphemy as one which should have any force in our society, or indeed worldwide, events like those in Batley will continue. Yet instead of challenging blasphemy-related extremism, political parties, local government, universities, and civil society promote the nebulous and authoritarian concept of ‘Islamophobia’, which opens the door to criticism and discussion of religion being portrayed as attacks upon individuals. This is little more than a blasphemy law disguised as a diversity and inclusion initiative.

There are signs UK society is coming to terms with the danger and scale of anti-blasphemy violence. Let us hope we can wake up to this threat before any more innocent teachers are left living with post-traumatic stress, or any more individuals are beheaded for asserting their right to freedom of speech.

Editorial note: this piece was originally published on the National Secular Society website on 4 April 2024 and is republished here with permission.

Further reading

Blasphemy in the classroom, by Emma Park (New Humanist)

Free speech in Britain: a losing battle? by Porcus Sapiens

Secularism and the struggle for free speech, by Stephen Evans

Britain’s blasphemy heritage, by David Nash

Cancel culture and religious intolerance: ‘Falsely Accused of Islamophobia’, by Steven Greer, by Daniel James Sharp

Blasphemy and bishops: how secularists are navigating the culture wars, by Emma Park

Faith Watch, November 2023 and Faith Watch, March 2024, by Daniel James Sharp

The Michaela School and religious exceptionalism, by Khadija Khan

The post Three years on, the lessons of Batley are yet to be learned appeared first on The Freethinker.

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which celebrates the first revelation from the angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Muhammad in 610 CE, ends in a few days, on 9 April. During Ramadan, every adult Muslim must fast from dawn to sunset. As one Muslim website explains, this means ‘avoid[ing] food and drink (including water), sexual activity, smoking, intoxication, and any impure thoughts.’ In Muslim-majority countries, Ramadan also means that Islam dominates everyone’s life even more than usual. In Pakistan, with its increasing religious intolerance and strict Islamic laws, it is very difficult for ex-Muslims like me to survive at the best of times—and Ramadan makes it even harder.

I have not publicly declared myself an ex-Muslim because doing so could easily cause my death. Living with my family in a small Pakistani city, I pretend I am a moderate Muslim. The commencement of the month of Ramadan means a complete change in lifestyle and daily routine. Working hours and conditions change. Most shops remain closed until the afternoon. All restaurants are closed until dusk. Most people, who are not very religious outside of the holy month, become more observant—Islamic garb becomes more visible and beards grow longer. Attitudes harden, too, and anyone who is seen as not religious is made to feel unwelcome in this atmosphere.

Though my family is relatively moderate and gives me some space to be free, it is still risky to tell them that I don’t participate in Ramadan. Therefore, in front of them, I pretend to fast while secretly eating and drinking whenever I get the chance. There are two important meals during Ramadan. One is Sehri or Suhoor; this is the meal that is eaten before dawn. You have to wake up very early to eat this meal—and if you miss it, you won’t have anything to eat or drink during the day until the second meal, Iftar, which is eaten at sunset to break the fast.

During Ramadan in Pakistan, it is very difficult to eat or drink during the daytime even if you are not fasting. Pakistan is a Muslim-majority country, and the majority of Muslims here are devoutly religious, at least during Ramadan, so most people are fasting. There are also laws forbidding public eating and drinking during the daytime during Ramadan. Perhaps most importantly, the Pakistani version of Islam is a very insecure one. You have to display your religiosity if you want social approval; by the same token, it is considered compulsory to criticise and humiliate those who are not acting religiously during this time. People who engage in activities forbidden by Pakistani Islamic laws—such as sex outside of marriage, drinking alcohol, selling drugs, etc.—tend to become very religious during this month, and they police the behaviour of others—all the better to protect themselves from scrutiny.

In 1981, the notorious Pakistani dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq issued the Ehtram-e-Ramazan Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance was to protect the sanctity of the month of Ramadan. According to this ordinance, no person can eat or drink during Ramadan in any public place, including hotels and canteens. Anyone found eating or drinking can be sent to jail for three months. This law also forbids restaurant owners from selling or offering food to anyone during fasting hours. Cinemas and theatres are also bound by this law to be closed for the entire month. This law has caused much trouble for liberal/non-practising Muslims, non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. In 2013, a paan seller was jailed for five days for violating the ordinance but it took him six years to get out of jail.

I have a few other ex-Muslim friends in my city who face similar problems too. The only public place where edibles are available is the hospital canteen. So whenever possible, one of us gets (or, rather, smuggles) edibles from the canteen and we gather in a private space to secretly enjoy our tea, food, and water. This activity keeps us safe from prying eyes. But due to the nature of my work, I usually remain indoors. I live and work alone in the upper portion of my home. I rarely get any visitors so I have secretly kept some dates, a water bottle, and some other edibles which I can consume during fasting hours to maintain my body’s nutrients. I sometimes get bored of this fare but in this environment, I have little choice but to accept it. At least my family does not force me to recite the Quran or go to pray at the mosque. Overall, it’s a better deal for me than for many others.

Over the past few years, religious intolerance has grown in Pakistan. Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) is an Islamist extremist political party founded in 2015 that has become more and more prominent. This party openly calls for the murder of apostates and even for the execution of Muslims who commit acts deemed by the TLP as un-Islamic. Ex-Muslims and religious minorities like Ahmadi Muslims and Hindus are all living in a state of constant fear as the Islamists grow in numbers and influence. During Ramadan, even non-Muslims are forced to remain hungry and thirsty because they fear Muslim majoritarianism.

All of this impacts my life in multiple ways. Physically, my body needs a constant supply of food after short intervals to keep functioning, otherwise I feel giddy and drained. During Ramadan, therefore, it becomes very hard for me to function and I barely survive. This physical breakdown leads to mental health issues which impact my job, my relationships, and everything in between. During Ramadan, working hours also change, which affects me financially. For all these reasons and more, Ramadan is a nightmare month for me—and the thousands like me.

Pakistan is becoming increasingly mired in extremism, as the rise of the TLP shows. This marginalises even further the many people who disagree with the majority religious view. Such people are unable to declare their true opinions and are forced into participating in a religious observance they do not believe in. Instead of policing people’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof), the Pakistani state should use its resources to improve the welfare of the Pakistani people. Efforts are better expended on the development of the country than on interference in religious affairs, which should be private. Pakistanis need to create a country where people with diverse religious views can coexist without any fear of the majority. A good start would be repealing the 1981 ordinance and allowing Pakistanis to make their own choices as to which beliefs and practices they will subscribe to.  

More on freethought in Pakistan:

Breaking the silence: Pakistani ex-Muslims find a voice on social media, by Tehreem Azeem

Coerced faith: the battle against forced conversions in Pakistan’s Dalit community, by Shaukat Korai

From religious orthodoxy to free thought, by Tehreem Azeem

The post Surviving Ramadan: An ex-Muslim’s journey in Pakistan’s religious landscape appeared first on The Freethinker.