Posted on 05/26/2004 2:17:56 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Certainly there are those within Islam who do not subscribe to the atrocities I am about to discuss, but their peaceful practice of Islam doesn't make it a peaceful religion. A peaceful religion is similar to that of Richard Gere and his Buddhist brethren.
Professor Moshe Sharon of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem writes:
Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world ... Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world ... quoting a verse in English ... 'Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.' The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Muslim world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam ... Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.
Consider: There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam.
This includes Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Indonesia, all of the Emirates, Sudan, Philippines, India, Libya, Algeria, Malaysia, Spain, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan and, finally, what they call the "occupied territory" – Israel. Louis Farrakhan is the face of Islam in America. Is his message one of peace?
According to a recent story in WorldNetDaily, "A British Muslim convert characterized an alleged mission to bomb the Israeli embassy in Australia as his obligation to Allah to perform jihad ..." The man went on to say, "As Muslims we are obligated to perform jihad to uphold the laws of Allah, the truth on his earth."
There have been Baptists calling for Hollywood to produce programming fit for family consumption – but I cannot point to Baptists calling for Hollywood to be destroyed because it is comprised of Jews and infidels.
There exist doctrinal differences between Wesleyans, Nazarenes and charismatics – most notably on the subject of glossolalia – but I have never heard these groups refer to one another as infidels or call for annihilation. But true followers of Islam cannot make that claim.
According to Dr. Mark Gabriel ("Islam and Terrorism"), "There are 114 verses in the Quran that speak of love, forgiveness and peace (Meccan verses). All are abrogated by Sudah 9:5, known as 'The Verse of The Sword,' which came later in Muhammad's life (Medina):
Find and slay the pagans [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent [convert to Islam], and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, them open up a way for them: for Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful ...
– Surah 9:5
I cannot think of any practicing Catholics I know who would be overjoyed if their daughter married an unrepentant atheist. But I am unwaveringly confident that their priest would not call for her to be stabbed or axed to death for having brought dishonor to the family. Yet, as WorldNetDaily reported in April, that is exactly what a Muslim Jordanian man did to his 8-months pregnant sister. And a Muslim Kurd murdered his 16-year-old daughter for starting a relationship with a Lebanese Christian boy in September 2003.
WND further reported "an anthropologist's study said dozens and probably hundreds of brutal 'honor killings' of Palestinian women and girls ... annually go unreported." Such occurrences have taken place in the United States. Some may try to dismiss or argue away these examples as anecdotal, but they are anything but.
The recent beheading of Nick Berg sickened us, but this act was practiced and sanctioned by Muhammad himself.
In an article published by Barnabas Fund on May 14, "Hundreds of Christians die in bloody massacres in Kano," the Christian Association of Nigeria reported Muslim rioters had murdered 600-plus Christians and burned 12 Christian churches in one night. Pregnant women were "ripped open and their bodies burned."
In Jersey City and Newark, N.J., it wasn't Mennonites or Methodists who celebrated in the streets as 3,000-plus Americans (Muslims included) were murdered.
Every morning of every day we read and hear of atrocities committed by fanatical Muslims. Christians are commonly politicized as being hardcore and fanatical; but decapitation is not Christian theology.
Many Muslims in this country may be peaceful, but apart from the radical activities of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, I've not heard a cacophony of their voices. But we should. After all it wasn't Mormons standing on a bridge in Fallujah shouting Allahu Akbar (God is great) while the remains of innocent mutilated Americans burned.
I won't dispute this either. But remember, there was a time when Muslims could also have pointed out how tolerant they were. And I don't blame people for being more cautious, or for demanding justice when justice is due.
Thanks John. Always, always enjoy your posts.
Why don't you bring up something relevant within the last 50 years?
Oh and one more thing... you obviously are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation, which Muslim activists will never tell you about.
The crusades were in part instigated by Pope Urban whose help was sought by the Byzantines. The Muslims had been murdering Christians, destroying churches, etc. The crusades were, therefore, begun, as a war to STOP Islam. I think it was a good idea, but they just had a bunch of rag-tag people out there who really didn't know what they were doing; they weren't a real army. Everyone always acts like the Crusades were just some evil thing, but the actual reasoning behind them was in essence to stop Islam. Just my nutshell view.
The reason (and ONLY reason) most Moe-Ham-Heads are not terrorists is because they haven't yet been told to be.
Probl;em is, we support the Saudis, the uberjihadis.
By not naming them as an enemy, we create this brouhaha over all of Islam.
Pssst, Here's a secret - the Saudis are hated by everyone.
Liberating the Holy Cities from their clutches would have made us heroes in the eyes of many many muslims.
But we've blown that chance.
The alleged war on a tactic is stalled, out of gas and has nowhere to go.
Egypt once the richest land of Central Lands Sea area, now dirt hole, cess pool.
Ahh but Islam in Algeria, Sudan, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Russia, Eritria, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Makedonia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Bosnia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tazikastany, Kyrgistan, etc do just as that...murder, maime and butcher...when last time illiterate imam scream that forgive you neighbors and put down weapons? When neighbor is not other Islamo, that is?
You are correct, of course. And the killing continues, "in the name of Allah!"
I was merely pointing our that right here in the USA, there is a problem. LadyDoc exemplifies that problem.
How about a world-wide criminal enterprise? Arabian Mafia version of Murder, Inc.?
So, you are saying that during the times when Christians were fighting Muslim conquerors, it was the norm to kill? No. It was condemned always by Christianity.
Wrong, Islam mean SLAVE of Allah, obedience not of voluntary free willed man, as Christian or Jew, but slave.
Pillars of Islam
Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad
Well now here is little issue isn't it. Islam lie about accepting Bible, why? Because it is clear one message of Bible: Christ is God, so how is Muhammed fit in? Well is this not little interesting issue.
Zakah. The financial obligation upon Muslims.
Each Muslim calculates his or her own zakah individually. This involves the annual payment of a fortieth
Well look like Islam is more stingy then Christianity, where issue is 10%, voluntary as show of faith, not enforced by immam and culture police.
"A Christian nation, rounding up Jews to beat them up, seize their property, and ultimately killing them in the biggest mass-murder ever - because of their religion. (Nazi Germany)"
Why are you neglecting to report the fact that the same Nazi regime jailed and slaughtered Christians because of their belief system? Or that Hitler and others of his leadership were cultists rather than Christian? Or that there were ethnic Jews among his leadership?
oh, boy, I understnd your sentiments, but I have no misunderstandings about Islam.
http://www.dhimmi.org
I'm not agains the people, I am against the thought that turns decent people into inhuman killing machines. Hate the sin (Isllam) not the sinners.
A few despots? Only all 22 Arab Nation, to include Palis, Iran, to degree Indonesia and groups like KLA...only few despots...yup, apologize for Islam all you want, sure you own your own prayer rug and get check per post of immams.
Many intellectuals and politicians within the Muslim world often attempt to stretch the meaning of historical concepts and manipulate them in order to cope with current political situations, or as a way to polish their political agendas. Peace and Jihad in Islam are two of the most popular concepts redefined by twentieth-century political writers. In an article published by the Palestine Times (August issue) entitled "A Christian Perception of Islam, the Struggle for Dialogues and Peace," the author tries to assure Western readers that no militant concepts are promoted by Islamists. But by trying to reach his legitimate, political goal, that is to brush a brighter picture of Jihad, the author falls into the trap of distorting history and subverting centuries of implementation by generations of Muslim leaders and activists.
It is true that "Muslims are called by the Qurían and the example of the Prophet of Islam to strive for Peace through all available means," but the Peace that is called upon believers to implement is a politico-military one, i.e., under the banner of Islam. Not that early Muslims were different from other religious movements, including Christians under the Crusades, but it is not fair to reinterpret what the Prophet asked his followers to do, in light of what twentieth-century Muslim politicians are eager to achieve. One should respect the will of Mohammed, and not try to rephrase words which shaped the history of the region for 13 centuries.
In the same order of ideas, it is not true to say that "the very term "Islam" derives from the root word whose basic meaning is peace", when the opposite is true. In fact, the terms "Salaam" or even "Silm" (which, by the way, have different political meanings) come from the root verb sallama, meaning "surrender" or more precisely "gave up". Peace, or Salam, means the state of surrendering. Thus, al-Islam is technically to surrender to Allah, accurately described by the author as "self-surrender to God."
Also the author is right when he writes that "in Qura'anic terms, peace does not only mean absence of war, it is also a positive state of security in which one is free from anxiety or fear." But he fails to explain that this state of security is only available in Dar el-Islam, or wherever Islam prevails. That is to say that there will be full peace and security in the conquered land. The question is why is the land conquered in the first place.
The author writes that "Jihad is often translated as holy war, a characterization which does not, however, fully or deeply reflect the essence of the term." He explains that "the word Jihad comes from the verbal noun of the Arabic verb Jahada, meaning to endeavour, to strive or to struggle." In fact while it is true that the linguistic root of Jihad comes from Jihd (effort) or the verb Jihad (constant effort), the debate is not about the linguistic meaning, it is about the political meaning. For example, no one would examine the concept of crusade from a strict linguistic angle, as it is related to the word cross; otherwise the meaning of crusade would be "act on behalf of the cross", which was not the reality of the movement not the meaning still given to it in the English language today.
The author wrote that "in a religious context, it can mean to struggle against one's evil inclination or toward the moral uplift of society or for the spread of Islam. Islam can be spread peacefully with the Jihad of the pen, according to Surah 16:125 of the Qurían." That is true, but again that is not the reason why Jihad is being debated. Then the author finally admits the other meaning of Jihad when he wrote "but the use of force is also possible, namely with the Jihad of the sword according to the Surah 2:193 of the Qurían. That, in fact, is the essence of the debate today. That fact that many verses praise Jihad as a personal, moral struggle is not the object of inquiry, but rather that one single verse, and there are many others, that links Jihad to violence; this deserves thefocus of analysis.
The author then tries to personally interpret the concept by writing: "In my understanding, the concept of Jihad is more meaningfully translated as "holy peace"." Here again, ethnocentrism prevails. If Jihad is perceived as holy peace, one should also look to its perception by the recipients of the holy war. As for the original concept of Peace, the instrument of Jihad has two facets. To those who implement it, it can be what they believe it is. To those who are facing it, it is what it is, i.e., a violent implementation of an alien ideology and political agenda.
The author goes on to distinguish between greater Jihad and lesser Jihad as he writes: "Among pious Muslims and mystics, it is a spiritual and moral Jihad that is emphasized. This is called greater Jihad in comparative terms, in relation to the lesser Jihad, the more popular concept of Jihad, which is the 'Holy War'" as stated in the following tradition (Hadith) of the Prophet Muhammed: "Once, having returned from one of his campaigns, the Prophet said: 'We have now returned from the lesser Jihad". The tradition adds that the companions asked: "What is the greater Jihad?" and the Prophet answered: "The struggle against one's evil inclination." This is the deeper and more personal aspect of Jihad that by its very etymology is an inner struggle for "holy peace", as opposed to the outer physical struggle for "holy war". To attain real peace, one first must undergo a real struggle that begins from within. However, again and again, the author forgets the level of analysis and omits it in order to compare the implementation in various realms. In other words, what is important to non-Muslims is not the philosophical order of Jihad within the Muslim community, but the implementation of Jihad to non-Muslims. If the so-called lesser Jihad means war against the infidels, then the lesser Jihad is more important to non-Muslims than the so-called greater Jihad, which affects only the personal lives of Muslims. In sum, why would non-Muslims, in historical terms, attach any importance to the personal Jihad of individual Muslims if what makes an impact on them is the Jihad (lesser or greater) that affects their lives and the future of their community?
The author adds that "any initiative toward peace taken by an enemy must be accepted and responded to in good faith and with good will." He fails to explain why there is an enemy in the first place. Historically, Jihad was an offensive movement that moved Arab Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula to Spain and India. To claim that mercy as a feature of the Mujahedeen (Jihad militants) is a interesting detail, but the question is what is the reason for Jihad? This is the debate that all Muslims, and probably non-Muslims as well, should be undergoing by now.
We are curious about the mercy claimed by the Jihad advocates, and the real challenge is for them to explain to Muslims and non-Muslims as well why was there a Jihad at the origin of the movement? The author concludes that "the religions of Islam and Christianity teach moral fortitude and enjoin each member to exercise justice. It is within this commandment that Jihad or 'holy war' has to be understood under the present circumstances." In other words, the author tells us that holy war can take place in order to exercise justice. Unfortunately, the constant missing link is whose justice are we talking about? Who decides which it is?
In conclusion, we acknowledge the reasons why advocates of Jihad feel uncomfortable with that concept in modern times. The balance of power is not (yet) in favour of the Mujahedeen. But history is history, and Jihad is Jihad, and no one can change the legacy of 13 centuries. One cannot and must not pervert history as a way to serve political gains. Those who invented Jihad inthe 7th century intended it for particular purposes and are the authors of the concept and as such, they should be respected intellectually. If some of their heirs wish to change the meaning of what was normal then, they should say so, and act upon it. In the Christian world, modern Christians outlawed Crusading; they did not rewrite history to legitimize themselves. Those who believe that the Jihad-Holy War is a sin today must have the courage to delegitimize it and outlaw it as well.
PS: Published in "Palestine Times," August 1997
Editor's note: The said article was a Christian perception of Islam. The articles published in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Palestine Times. However, we agree with Dr. Phares on many points mentioned in his article.
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.