Interesting Editorial

[jubilance1922]

This came from www.islamicity.com. I felt that it summed up really well a lot of feelings that I have. Please read with an open-mind.

I am in rage when people demean Islam
11/21/2005 - Political Religious Social - Article Ref: IV0311-2139
Number of comments: 78
Opinion Summary: Agree:54 Disagree:9 Neutral:15
By: iViews Staff
Iviews* -



"There was one only good, namely, knowledge; and one only evil, namely, ignorance." - Socrates

This must be the Age of Ignorance. An age whereby the impoverished and the wealthy, the illiterate and the educated, the faithful and the faithless, the weak and the powerful, the east and the west share a common trait, a common cause, a common lie - ignorant perversion of faith, of morality, and truth. An "Age" where lies, greed, murder, and abuse of humanity are justified, even glorified, in the name of the Almighty.

From so called "Conservative Compassion" to "Misused Jihad", the end result is wanton murder and destruction of those unwilling to submit to the "truth of the folly and ignorant" of those delivering "smart bombs" or "car bombs." The wicked indifference to life and truth, the intellectual disconnect from knowledge and reality, and the immoral ignorance of their own faiths, are the evil triad of the leaders of today.


Misrepresented Islam:

There are some who claim Islam as their faith. They perform their daily prayers in peaceful congregation with their fellow Muslims, hearing the compassionate and merciful teachings of God and His Holy Prophet, Muhammad, peace be upon him, only to leave the mosques and return with guns or car bombs to kill the same Muslims they just prayed with, shoulder to shoulder, glorifying God and facing the Holy City of Makkah. These people who have professed to submit to the will of God have launched a killing spree that does not differentiate between civilians and combatants, Muslims or Non-Muslims. Nor in their ignorant rage do they respect the sanctity of Makkah or the Holy month of Ramadan. No Muslim today who worships God and understands the Holy Quran can accept this murderous perversion of our faith and not condemn it publicly and repeatedly from every minaret, microphone, school, radio, television, or government office from Washington D.C. to Jakarta. Muslim voices must cry out in unison against those who take the lives of the innocent, lives created by God who breathed of His spirit into each human soul. All of humanity, east and west, north and south, should be consistent in condemning terrorism whether committed by governments, or by individual groups.

I share the anger and frustration, against people that demean Islam in words, weather it is General Boykin or Pat Robertson. Even more, I am in rage when people demean Islam in action weather it is Sadam Hussain or extremists who profess to submit to the will of God.

The Talibans of the west - Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell and yes .. some members of the current administration - want to make America exclusively a "Zionist-Christian" nation and marginalize Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Mormons, and every other faith that does not conform to their thinking. It does not matter to them if they alienate the rest of the world with their unilateral war on the innocent and unconditional support of Israel's atrocities.

In due time the American people will come to understand the folly of such distortion of the founding principals of this nation. However, we as Muslims must never, ever, commit their brand of evil upon innocent civilians who've caused us no harm. Our Holy Quran is replete with admonitions to Muslims to be just, deal fairly, even with unbelievers, be patient and compassionate even in adversity, to be humble always, to be charitable to the weak, and live in peace with all who do not seek to harm or oppress Muslims or commit injustice.

Yes, Muslims around the world have a duty and legitimate claim to oppose and fight the unjustified political and military oppression of Muslims by any nation, but the fight must be against those who are combatants, not civilians. Even in war, the Prophet forbade Muslims from harming civilians, destroying buildings, killing animals, and uprooting plants and trees.


There is no greater theological misrepresentation of Islam and an outrageous oxymoron than the term "Muslim terrorist." The killing of innocent civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Chechnya, America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Indonesia, Spain, or anywhere else must be condemned forcibly, and if known to be committed by people who profess to be Muslims must be stopped primarily by Muslims themselves. They are sinners against God, hijackers of a peaceful faith, and harmful to the general interests of Islam.

Let's begin with a firm understanding and love of our faith. Let us enlighten our minds and hearts and hold on firmly to the Glorious Quran. Let us begin with an individual change and commitment to Islam, then hasten a change within our family, our neighbors, our community, then our nations; then and only then will we be assured of victory from God against those who spread corruption. But first we must clean our own house of despot, squandering rulers and hypocritical, extremists who claim to be the vanguards of Islam.

The Holy Prophet enjoins upon ALL Muslims to do good and prevent evil, even if its against one's family.

"Anybody amongst you who sees evil should correct it with his own hands. If unable to do so, he should correct it with his speech. If he is unable even to do that, he should at least consider it as such in his heart, for this is the weakest degree of faith."

Are you doing good and preventing evil? Are you taking part in the betterment of society and the world? Are you donating your time and money for the good of your community and humanity? Are you feeding the poor, sponsoring the orphans? Are you reaching out to others to inform them in actions and words the values of Islam? Are you condemning Muslims when they perform evil acts? Are you preparing for tomorrow? If you are, may God bless you, if you're not, may God have mercy on us all.

The individual action of everyone of us effects us collectively. God willing if we all do our part in promoting good and preventing the bad, we can fulfill the Quranic directive - "You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for the good of humankind; you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God." (Quran 3:110)

[RACooper]

I've seen other articles that do express the same basic gist - but I do gotta say that this one unfortunately smacks more than a little of a skewed view point as well... ie. glossing over the actions committed in the name of Islam, but not seeing the same arguement for equally flawed or repugnant actions committed in the names of other faiths.

Bascially it comes across as a little silly for some one to complain "woe is me" and lament the lack of understanding of their faith and views, while at the same time failing to acknowledge the same in others faiths and views...

Oh and of course the standard Israel jab was the kicker - the fact that Israel gets the same demonized special treatment sorta weakens the article's arguement, and the credibility of the author.

[honeychile]

Okay, where I have problems is when people say that Islam is a religion of peace. I read the Q'ran while in school (Comparitive Religious Studies), and while I don't remember a lot of it, I remember some fairly violent phrases, such as,

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind (the rest) in bonds: and either give them a free dismissal afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall you do." (Muhammad, Quran, War ch. 4).

"Truly, if God pleased, he could take vengeance on the unbelievers, without your assistance; but he commands you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other." (Muhammad, Quran ch. 47, War)

"Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors." (Quran, Sura 2:256)

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by honeychile
Okay, where I have problems is when people say that Islam is a religion of peace. I read the Q'ran while in school (Comparitive Religious Studies), and while I don't remember a lot of it, I remember some fairly violent phrases, such as,

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind (the rest) in bonds: and either give them a free dismissal afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall you do." (Muhammad, Quran, War ch. 4).

"Truly, if God pleased, he could take vengeance on the unbelievers, without your assistance; but he commands you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other." (Muhammad, Quran ch. 47, War)

"Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the aggressors." (Quran, Sura 2:256)

You have to take it within context. You will concede that the Bible has some violent passages as well, right?

During the time that the Quran was handed down, Muslims were under attack for their beliefs. They had to defend themselves because their lives were at stake. Hence, there are references to violent acts in the Quran. But does the Quran advocate killing folks just for the fun of it? NO.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by honeychile
Okay, where I have problems is when people say that Islam is a religion of peace. I read the Q'ran while in school (Comparitive Religious Studies), and while I don't remember a lot of it, I remember some fairly violent phrases

Now while I may have disagreed with some of the language... okay alot of the language used in the editoral - I do agree with the basic spirit of the article: that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hi-jacked by fundamentalist wackos.

Now in defense of Islam - I'm sure you also remember that the Bible has some pretty violent stuff in it too right?
leaving out all the fun of Leviticus we have stuff like:
Numbers 33:51-52
Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.
Deuteronomy 2:34
At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.
Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
-and for some New Testament fun as well:
2 Peter 2:12
But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.


But just like the Quarn it all comes down to placing the passages in both their spiritual context but historical context as well - when and why were they written? Just as jubilance1922 pointed out placing the passages within the historical context of the faith you can understand why some are more violent or dark than others (as in most of the Prohpets in the Bible)... but just as with us Christians and the Bible, the Islamic faith isn't based on one or few passages from the Quarn. Those who base their interpretation of faith on a few passages are generally as nutty as the "Christians" who do the same (again look up WBC for something along that vein).

[hoosier]

If the state of Virginia was involved in a civil war, and California sent an army to intervene, control the peace, and train and equip the Virginia army to strengthen it, do you that Pat Robertson and his merry band of disciples would be setting roadside bombs on I-95 and blowing up Krogers to annoy the Californians?

PS: Hate to waste my 2700th post on this. Still only 20% as many as Tom Earp, though.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
If the state of Virginia was involved in a civil war, and California sent an army to intervene, control the peace, and train and equip the Virginia army to strengthen it, do you that Pat Robertson and his merry band of disciples would be setting roadside bombs on I-95 and blowing up Krogers to annoy the Californians?

PS: Hate to waste my 2700th post on this. Still only 20% as many as Tom Earp, though.

CONTEXT hooiser CONTEXT...

IF you want to try and make such an arguement, you might try to attempt to approach somewhat similar circumstances - not as you have done compare apples and prawns.

IF lets the US becomes a dictatorship, and say that Saudi Arabia or Indonesia invades and occupies the US as a plan to ensure that WMDs are eliminated, regime change is possible, and democracy is restored - would you honestly argue that there wouldn't be a violent recation from some quarters? Say for example some of the more extreme "Christians".... or backwoods militias (after all McVeigh didn't even wait for foreigners of an alien faith did he).

[Tom Earp]

So, The Islamic Good Book says Thought Will Shalt Not! Then Why do it.

It so doesnt Mean You as an Islam wont do it anyway as it does in Christian Good Books.?

So, How Many Islam Dictators of Countrys do not Kill People who Do Not Agree With Them?

A Hell Of a lot easier to Spell The Countrys than the Dick Wads Names!

Iraq, Iran, Chad, Libyea or any other Barbarians who want the Riches from their People of Poverty?

If and only If the People want Americans out Of Iraq, Then Learn how to Govern Yourselfs in a Humanitarian Manner! Or Can You?

Go Back To The Despots Who Kill People because they belong to a differnt Sects or disagree!

Good Luck and Mohammed Speed!

[honeychile]

Originally posted by RACooper
Now while I may have disagreed with some of the language... okay alot of the language used in the editoral - I do agree with the basic spirit of the article: that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hi-jacked by fundamentalist wackos.

Now in defense of Islam - I'm sure you also remember that the Bible has some pretty violent stuff in it too right?
leaving out all the fun of Leviticus we have stuff like:
Numbers 33:51-52
Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.
Deuteronomy 2:34
At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.
Joshua 11:20
For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
-and for some New Testament fun as well:
2 Peter 2:12
But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.


But just like the Quarn it all comes down to placing the passages in both their spiritual context but historical context as well - when and why were they written? Just as jubilance1922 pointed out placing the passages within the historical context of the faith you can understand why some are more violent or dark than others (as in most of the Prohpets in the Bible)... but just as with us Christians and the Bible, the Islamic faith isn't based on one or few passages from the Quarn. Those who base their interpretation of faith on a few passages are generally as nutty as the "Christians" who do the same (again look up WBC for something along that vein).

Just out of curiosity (and because I obviously have some sort of a stubborn streak going), have you ever read the entire Q'ran? Especially an edition that has had few translations (vs. Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)? I have.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by honeychile
Just out of curiosity (and because I obviously have some sort of a stubborn streak going), have you ever read the entire Q'ran? Especially an edition that has had few translations (vs. Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)? I have.

Yep read it through in my Mediaeval scriptures class - the Chrisitan Bible (taught by a retired Vatican theologian), Qu'ran taught by Islamic scholar (whose specialties are Islamic apocolyptic literature, and of course the Qu'ran), and the Judaic scriptures (the whole Hebrew/Greek divide was interesting).

All in all a very facinating class that proved invaluable for another class dealing with the period of the Crusades...

However the one thing that I took away from the course was that to truely understand the scriptures one must understand the language and history - or the subtle and not so subtle nuances are completely lost on the contemporary reader.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by RACooper
Yep read it through in my Mediaeval scriptures class - the Chrisitan Bible (taught by a retired Vatican theologian), Qu'ran taught by Islamic scholar (whose specialties are Islamic apocolyptic literature, and of course the Qu'ran), and the Judaic scriptures (the whole Hebrew/Greek divide was interesting).

All in all a very facinating class that proved invaluable for another class dealing with the period of the Crusades...

However the one thing that I took away from the course was that to truely understand the scriptures one must understand the language and history - or the subtle and not so subtle nuances are completely lost on the contemporary reader.

True - and that's why I asked. It's been a few years for me & the Q'ran (or Qu'ran, as you say), but I'm more familiar with both the Judiac & Christian on a recent basis.

Yes, it is important to read the different passages in context. But, when "death to the infidel" is mentioned in so many ways, one can't help but remember it with a jaundiced view.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by honeychile
True - and that's why I asked. It's been a few years for me & the Q'ran (or Qu'ran, as you say), but I'm more familiar with both the Judiac & Christian on a recent basis.

Yes, it is important to read the different passages in context. But, when "death to the infidel" is mentioned in so many ways, one can't help but remember it with a jaundiced view.

The death to the infidel quotes don't bother me in the least - afterall within it's historical and scriptutral context it is calling for the death of pagans and heathens - not death for the "people of the book" (ie. Jews and Christians)... the only problem is that Crusades pretty much put an end to that view, and protection for the people of the book was dropped because of the Crusader's atrocities and such.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
The death to the infidel quotes don't bother me in the least - afterall within it's historical and scriptutral context it is calling for the death of pagans and heathens - not death for the "people of the book" (ie. Jews and Christians)... the only problem is that Crusades pretty much put an end to that view, and protection for the people of the book was dropped because of the Crusader's atrocities and such.

So as long as they don't kill Christians you're OK with it?

-Rudey

[IIOA]

I'm fascinated (and not fully informed) by this subject. I am aware that Muslims claim that theirs is a religion of peace, but then I see the Iranian president calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - the same Israel who are ostensibly called "people of the book" by Islamic apologists.

I don't see Methodists calling for the Presbyterians to be wiped off the map. The same pleas for historical context should, for intellectual consistency, be applied when citing Old Testament and New Testament passages.

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by IIOA
I'm fascinated (and not fully informed) by this subject. I am aware that Muslims claim that theirs is a religion of peace, but then I see the Iranian president calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - the same Israel who are ostensibly called "people of the book" by Islamic apologists.

I don't see Methodists calling for the Presbyterians to be wiped off the map. The same pleas for historical context should, for intellectual consistency, be applied when citing Old Testament and New Testament passages.

Its like the KKK and other white supremacy groups using Christianity. Would you consider a Klan leader or a neo-Nazi a good representative of Christianity?

In every religion there are people who use parts of it for their own personal gain. Those people will have to answer for their actions on Judgement Day.