I must congratulate A. Faizur Rahman for having attempted to clarify in his article 'Quranic verses quoted out of context' that kafir (non-believer) in the Quran does not mean non-Muslims - read Hindus. This is precisely what Javed Anand would not even attempt to do earlier in his response to my article 'The Holy Text and the Terror.' Surprisingly, despite Rahman's more balanced write-up, there seems to be a convergence between the two Muslim writers about me.

While Javed Anand says that I am consumed by hate, Rahman is more sophisticated; he says that some theological aspects need to clarified in the context of the "hatred" my article may have created in the minds of innocent non-Muslims.

Both seem to agree that it is not the theological content of the email of the terrorists which would create "hate," but my asking Islamic scholars to clarify whether what the terror email says is true or not, will.

Yet there is some difference between them. Javed Anand says that the Deoband Islamic seminary has taken the initiative to condemn terror of all kinds, in the process conceding that the theologians have a duty to counter the views of the terrorists. But Rahman does not seem to be with him on this. He is clear that the Deoband seminary need not take notice of the terror mail sent by some faceless, Islamic fringe elements and respond to them. He seems to be of the view that such prestigious institutions should not be seen to be responding to such irresponsible Mujahideen! Will Rahman stop for a moment and think what will happen if the Deoband seminary waits for the fringe elements to become more than the fringe to respond? In that case there may be no Deoband seminary to clarify, as it might have been either wiped out or would have joined the fringe to make it more than the fringe.

It is ridiculous to say that the terrorists are a fringe group today and that Deoband need not, therefore, respond.

Again, are they a fringe group in just holding a particular view of the Quran, or are they a fringe group holding a particular view of the Quran on the one hand and bombs and AK-47s on the other? Responsible Muslims like Rahman should think twice before taking such opaque positions.

Again, both Javed Anand and Rahman have written that I have quoted the verses of the Quran. I don't think either of them read my article with the minimum care that it deserved before responding.

I had only cited what the terrorists had quoted and not quoted anything from the Quran directly myself. So to charge me with having quoted from the Quran selectively is to obfuscate the real issue. If anyone quoted the Quran selectively or comprehensively it is the Islamist terrorists.

I had only cited what the terrorists had quoted and not quoted anything from the Quran directly myself. So to charge me with having quoted from the Quran selectively is to obfuscate the real issue. If anyone quoted the Quran selectively or comprehensively it is the Islamist terrorists.

It is my duty as a citizen and an experienced commentator to bring it to the attention of the Islamic scholars if they had failed to notice it.

Rahman says that my doing this duty - not the terrorists quoting the holy text for their violence - might create hate or hatred in the minds of innocent non-Muslims. Let the readers evaluate what will create hatred.

What I have said is this: "Dear Islamic theologians, the terrorists have quoted the Quran - to the effect that the holy text commands them to kill non-Muslims, and so please clarify that what the terrorists are saying is not what the holy Quran does." But Rahman says that I - who just requested the theologians to clarify that the Quran does not command Muslims to kill non-Muslims as non-believers, and the secularists to demand such clarification - am the hate monger, and the terrorists are just fringe elements fit to be ignored! Again, let the Deoband seminary take the position that terrorists are fringe groups whom they do not recognise nor want to respond to.Why should Rahman speak for Deoband? One thing is clear. Neither Javed Anand nor Faizur Rahman want to face the truth. It is the terrorists - not I - who claim that the Quran commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Wellmeaning Muslims have to face this truth.

But, like me, even Rahman, and Javed Anand, despite being Muslims, cannot do anything about it.

Like me, they can only ask, and ought to join me in asking, the Islamic theologians to counter it. It is only the authentic voices of Islam, the Deoband seminaries and the like, not Faizur Rahman and Javed Anand, who can deny what the terrorists have claimed and say that, in Islam, Hindus and other non-Muslims are not kafir (non-believers) to be done away with.

I do not think that the non-Muslims who are the targets of the terrorists will accept what Faizur Rahman says as the truth of the Quranic verses unless the authentic Islamic seminaries say so.

If they just say it is a wrong interpretation of the holy text, that will not suffice.

They have to say that the terrorists' view of the holy text is perversion. Nothing short of such denunciation will vindicate the true meaning of the holy text.

I just reported what the terrorists had claimed. It is necessary to read that message, and deny the terrorists the legitimacy to speak for the faith. Instead of doing that, abusing the messenger will not help.

Courtesy: www.expressbuzz.com, October 01, 2008