Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Dear Sir: I read your article about Islam. It contains a lot of things that are not true? I have a question for you: is it ingorance or malice that prompted you to write these things? If ignorance, I believe you should write another article, apologizing for making these canards. If malice, I ask God Almighty to strike you with a malignant cancer within 3-6 months. If you don’t apologize within five days, I will pray daily and nightly for this punishment to befall you.--Khalid Amayreh, Jerusalem
This lovely e-mail was the response I received to an article entitled Coulter Wars, an article that points out some of the problems in Muslim theology. Now, to be fair, I have also written an article that praised aspects of Muslim theology. After all, their emphasis on prayer, fasting and almsgiving is quite laudable, and their respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary is immense. Still, Muslim theological law, called sharia, is simply an abomination, and it was both the history of Islam and the implementation of sharia that merited Khalid’s attempt at Islamic voodoo.
Now some of Khalid’s odd habits of conversation may be due to the simple fact that he claims to be a well-respected Muslim journalist. The combination of “well-respected journalist” and “Muslim” should certainly have been a warning for what was to come.
When I asked precisely what “canards” he had found, he gave the following list:
Khalid’s First Objection: “Children to be whipped to death for breaking Ramadan fast. This false, brazenly false. Children, as well as ill people, elderly people, traveling people, nursing women, and women having their menstrual periods, don’t have to fast. (surat Bakara). Also people working really difficult jobs don’t have to fast if this undermines their health. Besides, fasting is a private affair between man and God...”
My Response: Unfortunately for Khalid, some imams seem to disagree with him, as this story documented:
“A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th [2004], after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.”
Khalid’s Second Objection: Women to be beaten to death by their husband for the smallest infraction. This is brazenly false. In Islam, the death penalty is prescribed only in three cases, murder, adultery (for men or women) and apostasy.
My Response: Not according to this story.
Khalid’s Third Objection: Marriage by the age of six is alright: This is not true...No body in our part of the world is allowed to marry below the age of 17 for women and 18 for men. I challenge you to cite a single marriage of (six years or even ten) sanctioned by a Sharia court...all over the Muslim world. You wouldn’t find such a thing.
My Response: See the link above and this. In Gaza fully one-third of girls were married below the statutory “legal” minimum age of 17. Iran just recently RAISED the age of consent to 13 in 2002. It was 9 (and probably still is in outlying provinces) according to this story and this one.
Khalid’s Fourth Objection: The examples you refer to are not examples of true sharia.
My Response: Unfortunately, sharia is only loosely based on the Quran or the Hadiths (the sayings of Mohammed). It is primarily drawn from the opinions of Islamic scholars. Although Khalid knew that, he insisted that I provide Quranic verses to back up what I said. I pointed out that even his Islamic scholars couldn’t do that, since sharia is not strictly based on just the Quran. He didn’t respond. As one might imagine, what constitutes sharia varies wildly depending on exactly where you are and what court you stand in front of. The differences between imams – Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi, etc. – is essentially as different as the differences between Anglicans, Baptists, Unitarians and the like, with no one to say what is true Islam anymore than there is someone to say what is true Protestantism or evangelicalism. What you get from Islam depends on which imam you happen to stand in front of today. I asked him how he, as a journalist with no formal theological training in Islam, could prov e he had any authority to tell me what was and was not Islam. Again, he didn’t respond.
Khalid’s Fifth Objection: Sex with a child of nine is fine: Where are you reading these things? Are you alluding to the Prophet’s marriage with Aisha? There are different narratives about how old she was when she married. Some say nine, some say 10, but many say 15 years old. So, I would say she was probably 15 or sixteen when she married the Prophet, not nine. In Arabia a fifteen years old...or even 13 is quite a woman...Same thing in Africa!
My Response: Khalid, your own sources agree with me and you just said so.
Khalid’s Sixth Objection: Adoption is illegal, it is not the adoption itself that is illegal, it is naming the adopted after the adopter’s name...In other words, the adopted child ought to retain his identity, if it does, then everything is Ok.
My Response: Khalid, you are not telling the truth. Go here and here.
Khalid’s Seventh Objection: Prostitution to service soldiers is illegal. How could you say that, Islam is very very strict about prohibiting these things...unrepentant prostitutes are given the death penalty. Prostitution is strictly, absolutely and completely prohibited. It is one of the most disgraceful vice in Islam.
My Response: Not according to this woman.
When shown the links, he responded, “You are wrong about temporary marriages, this exists in Shia Islam, not in Sunni Islam. In Sunni Islam, marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman…” So temporary marriages – prostitution – exists and he admits it. He just doesn’t happen to be a Shiite so he doesn’t like it.
Khalid’s Eighth Objection: polygamy is allowed provided there is justice in treating the wives.
My Response: So there is no “canard” here.
Khalid’s Ninth Objection: A man can invoke divorce by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. This is no longer valid, it has to be done before a Sharia court. Because the divorce invoked by an angry man, a drunkard, and one who is not in real control of his mental ability is invalid. Also, the divorce doesn’t occur in case of teasing, joking, jest, etc.
My Response: But a man CAN divorce his wife by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. He does it in front of a sharia court, he’s divorced - you just agreed that what I said was correct, Khalid. And just because SOME sharia courts require the man to appear doesn’t mean ALL of them do, does it?
Khalid’s Tenth Objection: A woman’s testimony in court is not equal to a man’s ...This would depend on the nature of the case. In financial matters, yes, you are right. But in other situations, like maternal matters, sexual matters, her testimony equals that of a man...Some times, her testimony is given priority over a man’s testimony.
My Response: Her testimony is not equal to a man’s in sexual matters. To prove rape, her word is not good enough. Four Muslim men of “impeccable” character have to have witnessed the penetration (that’s what makes them impeccable – they can watch a girl get raped and do nothing). So, you aren’t telling the whole truth and what parts you do tell just show that I told the truth. Nothing to recant here - you said so yourself.
Khalid’s Eleventh Objection: She can be stoned to death for being raped? How could you say that? This is a colossal canard? the opposite is true...She should be protected and defended. She is the victim, and her rapist should be punished severely.
My Response: Sorry, but here’s the documentation and here is more.
Khalid’s Twelfth Objection: She can be raped in order to punish her relative for their infractions. Again this is another canard...How could say these things? This is nonsense.
My Response: Documentation here and here. Back in October, when this hit the front pages, it was pointed out that the only reason the men were prosecuted for rape was due to Western interference in the trial. It is, apparently, quite common for Pakistani villages to order retaliatory rapes of women whose relatives commit infractions within the village. Again, tell me that this is not permitted? How can you do this? Islam has no central authority who determines what is true Islam and what is not - just a bunch of competing imams.
Khalid’s Thirteenth Objection: Islam discourages slavery..and urges Muslims to liquidate it...It was rampant in the 6th-century Arabia...and Islam followed a step-by-step approach to eradicate it...There are no slaves today in the Muslim world as far as I know. (slavery is rife in the Bible).
My Response: Khalid, slave armies were still being used by Muslims in 1863. Check here and here.
Khalid’s Fourteenth Objection: Female circumcision is an old African custom..., it has nothing to do with Islam...
My Response: The World Health Organization estimates that 130 million women and girls, most of them in 28 African countries, have been subjected to genital mutilation. Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan account for 75 percent of the cases. Circumcision is practiced on young girls to a lesser extent in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and India, which have sizable Muslim populations. The practice is believed to have started 4,000 years ago before the advent of organized religion. It is performed primarily, but not solely, by Muslims because of what many say is a misconception that it is required by Islam.
It may not have anything to do with Islam, but the fact is, most of the people doing it today are Islamic and THEY think it DOES have something to do with Islam.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: The first dozen caliphs were assassinated, not true.
My Response: This is the only point upon which you have me. The first four caliphs were assassinated. Abu Bakr died of poisoning, Umar was assassinated by a dagger-wielding assailant, Uthman was assassinated by a mob, Ali was assassinated in a mosque in Kufa. Mu’awiya died a natural death only because he barely survived a battle intended to kill him. His son, Yazid, avoided assassination primarily because he got to the knife first. He assassinated his rival, Hasain, and all his followers, including his infant son.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: We Muslims are rational thinkers...we don’t follow blindly our imams..We have the Quran..the eternal word of God, the Last Testament to mankind...Read it ...maybe you will see the light..like the millions of American and European Christians who have reverted to Islam...
My Response: Khalid, you know perfectly well that there are at least a dozen different versions of Islam, all of which say they follow “the eternal word of God.. the Quran”. The fact is, none of you can agree on what it means. There is no caliph, my friend, and one interpretation is just as good as another. If Muslim theology encouraged rational thinking, Muslims would have invented science. You didn’t, even though you had at least a five hundred year head start on the West. You still can’t do science - you have to buy it from the Christians. In Christianity, science developed under the rationality of Catholic Faith. Christianity also has a supreme head: the Pope. True, not everyone listens to him, but he is there and has always been there. The office of Caliph doesn’t even exist anymore and will never be reconstituted. You don’t have a supreme voice, nor even the pretense of one.
Khalid: Does your negative attitude towards Islam mean that we have to increase the number of our nuclear weapons to defend ourselves?
My Response: Khalid, you can barely build one nuclear weapon, much less dozens. You’re Islamic, remember? You can’t do science very well. You can’t even figure out how to buy them from the former USSR on the black market. You aren’t very good at threatening people, are you?
Khalid: Is this how evanglical Christians think? war, holocaust, killing...crusades...killing people because you love them!!!
My Response: No, that’s how Islam thinks. Christians think we have to defend ourselves, i.e., keep anyone from imposing sharia on us or on anyone else. Sharia is evil, my friend, pure evil. And as for the Crusades, give it a rest. Islam conquered one-half of Christianity between 632 and 750. We didn’t call crusade. Islam cut off pilgrimage access to the Holy Lands. We started the stations of the Cross devotion in response. Only when Islam destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was Crusade called, and that was only after 400 years of Islamic military provocation. Even then, we didn’t attempt to wipe out Mecca or Medina. We stopped when we got Jerusalem and the holy sites back.
Khalid: Muslims protected the Churches, they never destroyed any church as you claim. You are relying on questionable sources. That is why no respectable newspapepr would publish your article.
My Response: The fact that Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is common knowledge available in any encyclopedia. See this article, for instance:
In 1009, however, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakin ordered the destruction of all churches in Jerusalem, including the Holy Sepulchre. Christians were forbidden to visit the Church’s ruins. It took almost forty years for the Byzantine Emperor to negotiate a peace treaty with al-Hakin’s successor that granted him permission to rebuild the Holy Sepulchre
Khalid: I have decided to translate your article into Arabic and will post it tomorrow in all the mosques in our area. I will also try to get it published in our Arabic language newspapers. Our peole have the right to know what Christians are plotting against them. I hope you don’t mind.
My Response: Whatever makes you happy, Khalid.
So, this how a self-described prominent Muslim journalist argues. First, he prays that you will get cancer and die. Then he brings forward objections that he knows are false. When you show him that you know he is a liar, he threatens to nuke your country and bring a fatwah, a death sentence, against you personally by posting your refutations in every mosque and newspaper he can reach.
And this is a moderate Muslim. Just think what the immoderate Muslims would do…
About the Writer: Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and lecturer who integrates today's headlines with the Catholic Faith. His work is available through http://www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com.
don't like talking about folks without them knowing about it, but I won't again.
I used to think it was courtesy, too, ad, but not with these two.
Attention:
The only reason mrssmith and Chemist_Geek come on these threads is to get a hostile reaction which will get you banned.
Don't give them that satisfaction. Ignore them.
Yep. Should've known better. Won't happen again.
It has nothing to do with hate, although it might some day.
It has to do with self preservation.
Every act of terrorism is committed by a muslim. How can we NOT connect and equate Islam to terrorism?
Every act of terrorism is ignored by the muslim community as if it didn't occur. How can we NOT believe that they secretely condone it?
Yours is the ONLY belief system in the world which tolerates NO other on the threat of death - NOT a thousand years ago, but TODAY!
Your sympathetic whinings about the injustices perpetrated on the poor muslim community make me sick to my stomach!
From what I've seen, Chemist_Geek's responses are more along the lines of taking issue with opinions of the "all Muslims are like that" variety. If that causes "hostile reactions," then I submit that the problem is more likely with those who are saying stupid things, than with the people who point those things out.
I am typically far less impressed with the mental prowess of those who provide the hostile reactions, than I am with those who, like CG, elicit them. If that also places me in the "wrong" category in this context, then so be it.
There's already been one banned over remarks to him.
Some people's tempers won't permit them to respond.
Ping to 101
'There Can Be No End to Jihad' (Straight from the horse's … mouth)
Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an exclusive interview, discusses the rationale for 9/11, the Christians he most respects, and the Jesus he defends.
-snip-
Why do you believe hatred toward the United States could lead to the 9/11 attacks?
Islam is the final revelation, therefore those believing in it submit to Allah — the only One worthy of obedience in every sphere of life. To understand 9/11, we must go back to Tawhid — the exclusive worship of God in every sphere — religious, political, social, etc. Every human action must relate to this. 9/11 was undoubtedly an unpleasant moment for its targets or their relatives (Muslims and non-Muslim), but those committing it acted as a result of the predestined divine decree (although God does give man free will).
The "Magnificent 19" or "terrorists" are personally accountable for their actions. If these were based on God's commands, they will be rewarded; if against his commands, they will be punished.
The 19 referred to a divine text, Surah AL-Baqara 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you … " Muslims believe that non-Muslims are kaffir — those disbelieving in Islam. This is not an insult; it is a description. The God in whom we believe did not come from the womb of a mother. The USA is a kaffir state — and kaffir includes those U.S. Muslims who ally with non-Muslims, e.g. in the U.S. Army, as in Iraq, and are therefore legitimate targets of jihad.
Americans should listen to Muslims who believe in 9/11 and not to those Muslims who do not! "Terrorism" can be either positive or negative — i.e., for or against God. U.S. terrorism in Iraq is anti-God. U.S. voters have joint liability with the government they choose, as do Russian voters in regard to the actions of their government in Chechnya — yet they voted for Putin. Complicity in the acts of one's rulers makes one a legitimate target.
America is hated because they are aggressors against Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine, or by supporting corrupt, puppet Muslim regimes such as the Saudis, Egypt, the Gulf states, and the Shah of Iran. After World War II, America effectively declared war on Muslims and Islam — replacing the British and French Empires, controlling ex-British puppet rulers, but especially by giving military, financial, and diplomatic support to the Israelis. America uses its U.N. veto against Muslims. It establishes U.S. bases across the Muslim world — itself an act of aggression.
Do you believe that 9/11 was in any way Islamically justifiable?
Speaking objectively as a Muslim scholar, and not inciting such acts, jihad can be effected outside the battlefield — it is not restricted by time, place, building, event, people, transport food, water (both of which may be legitimately poisoned in jihad), or by clothing — there is no need to wear a uniform.
Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as "suicide bombers"! It is not restricted by target — even Muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed. Only one thing can restrict jihad — a Covenant of Security [Treaty]. Non-combatant women, children, elders, clergy, insane, disabled are restricted, and non-Muslim children go to Paradise. However, if such are killed in crossfire or if used as human shields, they become collateral damage. /snip/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334404/posts
Not true, and therein lies the root of your problem. Nearly every act of terrorism in Northern Ireland is committed by a (nominal) Christian. Pretty much every act of terrorism in Sri Lanka is committed by Tamil rebels. Many of the terrorist acts in India are committed by Sikhs or Hindus, as well as Muslims. Most acts of terrorism in Spain are committed by Basques. Much of the terrorism in Europe in the 70s and 80s was committed by communists. Most acts of terrorism in the US are committed by eco-freaks or (lamentably) right-wingers.
Would it therefore be necessary to equate Christianity, Tamil or Basque heritage, ecological or right-wing views with "terrorism?" Of course not.
It goes without saying that there is indeed a lot of terror committed by Muslims. But that is not the same as saying that Islam = Terrorist ... although that's precisely what the salamikaze terrorists are trying to make you think.
What you're basically setting up for yourself is a mindset where terrorism cannot be dealt with except by doing away with Muslims en masse. That's completely unjustified by the facts.
That's not CG's problem, though -- it's the problem of the folks who'd get so mad as to get themselves banned over what he's said. Having been on the receiving end of a bit of that abuse myself, I can't work up much sympathy over a fella who says something dumb, and then loses his temper over being called on it, to the point of being banned.
I know from personal experience how easy it is to let your temper get the best of you at FR. And I've learned how, most of the time, to control my temper -- or at least to confine my temper to this side of the keyboard. It's a valuable skill, and it's too bad more folks can't learn it.
That is not, however, sufficient to blame terrorism on "Islam" any more than the violence in Ireland, or the excesses of (say) Colonial England should be blamed on "Christianity."
"Islam," or certain very toxic "clerics?" I think it's the latter.
All the literature I've seen about islam leads me to believe otherwise. If you have information to the contrary, by all means provide it.
I agree with you; I don't know where this 98% figure comes from. I wish that even half that number of Muslims around the world would condemn the heinous acts committed in the name of Islam. Sadly, they are silent or defensive. And if they do speak out to condemn their brethren, their lives and the lives of their families could be endangered. It is quite sad, and it makes most of us very uneasy.
The difference is that "Christianity" has reformed itself and recast its doctrine into a modern, generally tolerant form. Until Islam undergoes the same kind of reformation, I suspect that many people will remain fearful of their future at the hands of ascendant Muslims.
Just listen to what prominent Muslims in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are saying for justification of that fear.
When the toxin is flowing from the very center of Islamic faith, in Mecca, then that's a bit of a different situation than the toxin of David Koresh, for example, wouldn't you say?
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.