Posted on 08/30/2007 3:19:26 AM PDT by ekeni
Thi is a repeat of the earlier post(with a little editing) where the body of the comment below was awful in formatting. My apologies. The following link has an audio interview from Radio New Zealand featuring a Kiwi convert named Abdullah to Islam. He is both candid, revealing of some aspects of Islam (perhaps unwittingly) and of course somewhat defensive. My comments on parts of the interview are set in the body of comment below.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/spiritualoutlook 26 August 2007
After Mohammad died his followers had some vicious disputes over successors, as Mohammad wouldnt appoint one. He deliberately omitted to do so. He knew he was dying and could have done so.
What Abdullah glossed over with respect to the killing of Ali and others was that those events were entirely different from anything after the death of Jesus. He referred to the wars as tribal but that suggests Islam as a religion could not rise above the culture of the time.
Certainly Christians were persecuted after the death of Jesus by non Christians and the famous Saul of Tarsus was one of the worst but became a convert to Christianity and was transformed into peaceful man.
If Abdullah meant that Jesus followers killed one another in brutal fights over succession he is wrong (but the tame interviewer who runs the programme didnt seek clarification.).
If what he meant was that some centuries later Christians killed fellow Christians and others then lets look at the morality of those actions in the light of Jesus standards.
Any Christian who (outside of being a soldier in a State army acting in obedience to its sovereign to fight for the State against an opposing State), killed enemies who opposed their religious beliefs/claims by the might of the pen or verbal jousting, could not claim to be a true follower of Christ .
The Church as an institution needs to repent for what was done by many in the name of Christ. The Church today condemns these actions as unChrist like. They were ALWAYS unChristlike! Jesus was radical in telling his followers to pray for those who persecute you, not to murder them. This is one of the marks of a Christian.
The difference is that any Muslim killing a non Muslim who in their view has insulted Allah or the prophet or is a threat to Islam can simply point to Mohammad for justification. Mohammad arranged the assassination of numerous opponents (including poets, singers and women).
Now the consequence is that given Muhammad himself arranged assassinations of his opponents then the Islamic violence after his death was consistent with the modus operandi of Allah and his prophet.
Jesus would have rebuked/condemned Mohammad for his violence, cruelty and lack of mercy. Islam ironically claims him as a Muslim prophet. The prophecy of Jesus that people will think they are killing as a service to God. directly applies to Mohammad and many of his followers, both ancient and modern.
After Jesus death did his followers murder one another to gain power? No, because that conduct directly contradicted the teachings and conduct of Jesus. Peter had already been rebuked for using violence. Mohammad used his right hand thug Khalid as a means to terrorise non believers and force conversions particularly after the conquest of Mecca.
The contrast is so obvious that Muslims like Abdullah (note the Arab name the same name as Mohammads father meaning slave of allah this convert to Islam has taken) use spin to create what they think is good PR for their religion.
Muslim apologists will argue its an extreme interpretation (of the Quran) that some Muslims today use as a justification to kill their enemies, but the problem with that argument is that Mohammad is the role model of Islam.
What is the appropriate interpretation of the Quran given there is no context in the Quran? It is that which is consistent with the behaviour of Mohammad.
Thus it is through the life of Mohammad seen as the final prophet of Allah, as recorded by Islams own (early) historians and scholars, that a proper interpretation of the Quran can be understood.
That is the story Islam doesnt want to get out in the open in an expansive way, and why the move to prohibit criticism of Mohammad is one of the objectives, along with welcoming revisionist rewriting of history by the likes of Armstrong and Ramadan. It otherwise leads to an undermining of the credibility of Islam in the post Jesus exemplar epoch.
Jesus in contrast gave no authority or encouragement whatsoever to the Koreshs of this world. In fact Jesus warned his followers to be aware of them and not to follow them. Some aspects of the haj experienced by Abdullah also caught my attention. One was the general crushing of believers in Mecca during some of the haj rituals. He describes the haj process as daunting.
What came to mind was the crushing of Mohammads chest by the being that accosted him in the cave (he believed it to be the angel Gabriel). The modern day collective crushing that occurs at the haj has some disturbing historical parallel with Mohammads individual encounter with that particular spiritual being (just as the Shiite version of Islam has a self mutilation ritual that has a historical parallel with the behaviour of the prophets of Baal: see 1Kings 18:28-29).
Another point was Abdullahs reference to third world attendees being impoverished by travelling to the haj. Why does Allah condone the impoverishment of his followers for a ritual? Abdullah as a convert to Islam conveniently had his haj costs paid by the Saudis!
Jesus told the woman at Jacobs well that God is spirit and a time is coming when God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth (not in or facing any city or site on earth). This is directly contradicted by the haj.
Abdullah contrasted his speaking up as a Kiwi convert to Islam with that of Muslims who immigrate to New Zealand who he says practise modesty and dont like to speak out. Maybe.
They will however presumably have learned that what they have been taught from birth in their original country, about other religions and the privileged status of Islam and Muslims over others, isnt accepted in democratic non Muslim countries that uphold freedom of religion and the right to change ones religion and so on (the rule of law).
I also suspect that they have yet to develop the spin doctoring skills needed to foster the right image.
Truth bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.