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.
Yeah, that is one of the cheif reasons I think Mohamed was mistaken or possibley even delusional about his inspiration for the Koran.
When I first read the Koran, it seemed that their concept fo God was the same as ours, but a presit highlighted some of the behavioral differences, like the lack of a loving/forgiving side to Allah. Allah is only harsh, holy, and loves those that love Him.
The Christian concept of God is more mature, complex and deeper. Because it is genuinely inspired by God, IMO. It is no accident that Plato and Socrates, etc came to an understanding of the Trinity in their emanationist theories well before the Greeks had contact with Christianity, and vis-versa.
I mistakenly thought that the emanationists were so dominate in the first century that maybe the earlyChristians adapted it from the Greeks. But no, the emanationists were marginal in ancient society in the first century and the mystery cults dominated everything. There was no reason for Christians to borrow any consepts from the emanationists as they had no influence to try to jump on to or use as a frinedly group of like minds.
IT is just , I think, another example of God choosing the fullest time for introducing His Son into the world.
Anyway, Islams rejection if the Trinity and the divinity of Christ is based on an erroneous concept of the Trinity that most Christians still subscribe to unwittingly.
God is not theco-equal dieties that just get along really super-neeto-keeno; they are three persons in one being. That oft repeated truth is harder to understand than what one might think at first blush. But it is why the Koran is right; God does not beget nor is He begotten, in a literal sense. God simply *is* and Jesus was with Him through all eternity as Jesus *is* God, just that aspect of God that has taken on personality through the conceptualization of His intent and design. Like one might speak of ones consience or mental state as seperate from ones *self*.
IT isnt really seperate, but in the case of God, it geneuinely is, as He manifests Himself in different ways.
Anyway, later.
Does the concept of free will exist anywhere within the Islamic world?
But they haven't always become radicalized. When the Eastern Orthodox and Jews of the Middle East were given a choice between being ruled by a Muslim or Christian Crusader, they often chose the Muslim because the Muslims treated them better. And there are plenty of cases where the Muslims were simply nicer and more honorable people than the Crusaders who fought them. In fact, during the Fifth Crusade, Saladin offered to trade Damietta in Egypt for Jerusalem and it was the Crusaders who refused.
Plenty of atheists make the exact same argument against Judaism and Christianity, looking at the blood on the hands of historical Jews and Christians as well as the blood shed within the Bible the same way you are looking at Muslims and the Quran.
Many of the problems with Islam seem to be related to the Sunna, Hadith, and Sharia, along with tradition, and not the Quran, itself. Out of that, moderate Islam is certainly a possibility.
As a Christian, do I think I'm right and Muslims are wrong? Of course. But I also think it's clear that there are Muslims who love God just as there are Jews that love God and I think that can transcend theology and make somebody a good person. And I don't think Muslims should be converted at the end of a sword any more than I think they should be converting people at the end of a sword.
If what you suggest is true--that there exist a sizable number of moderate Muslims but that they tend to just go along (as in submit?), why would you assume this will change upon the institution of democracy-- which for now we'll define as form of government which conducts popular elections?
You need to remember that Judaism and Christianity went through similar transformations. The Jewish Zealots tried to be violent and radical against Roman oppression and it ultimately didn't work. The Judaism that evolved out of that bad experience was both peaceful and productive. Similarly, Christianity went through phases of not only heresies but time as an imperial religion and managed to get over it.
The key is to get Muslims to seperate the religious sphere of their life from the political sphere. If they can do that, as my friends have, they'll be OK. Can I guarantee that will happen? Of course not. But I think it's certainly possible, if not probable. As I said, look to Iran. They've seen the theocracy and every knows it's bad. In fact, the reason why Sistani doesn't want a theocracy is that he sees how it has corrupted the religious leaders of Iran.
"O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son."
Jan is right, you sound different today, this is not meant as a criticism, merely an observation, but I like the change;0)
The words of the OT are God's words, as interpreted by man. Since man is fallible, the interpretation may be faulty. Additionally, what we refer to as the OT has been translated by man, and again, the fallibility thing, with possible mistakes made.
One mistake was previously noted, concerning the Commandment
"Thou shalt not KILL."
which should have read
"Thou shalt not MURDER."
The difference being in motivation: MURDER is pre-meditated, plotted and usually part and parcel to another broken commandment: stealing, adultery, idolatry, etc., generally unjustified.
Killing is spontaneous, protective (self or family defense), military, etc., and generally justified.
A simple little mistake and the meaning changes.
It is still God's word, BUT the accuracy is faulty.
Is it possible that Samuel used God to justify what happened?
The wholesale slaughter of the enemy was in keeping with the abhorrent practice of "Blood Revenge" prevalent among the pastoral, seminomadic tribes of the region, such as the Hebrews and their enemies, saying it was "ordered by God" absolves the doers of guilt, AND shows the power of the God of the Hebrews over the idols of the pagan enemies.
ALL th words of God are reported by others, in the NT, God, in the persona of his son Jesus, speaks directly to all of us, and his words and methods are different.
Jesus came to absolve mankind of millennia of sin and eternal damnation, but his word had to be followed to attain salvation, correct?
Perhaps God was angry over his representation, at times, in the OT as a jealous, angry and vengeful God, and decided to try and save those who portrayed Him that way by sending the Messiah.
As for Samuel, Saul and the Amalakites being today, and having the UN arrest them for their crimes, I was going to laugh - look at how much the Un helped the Tutsis in Rwanda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide, or helped stopped the Serbians Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, or stopped the Killing Fields in Cambodia, then I realized that we were talking about stopping the HEBREWS and realized the Un would definitely tried to stop them!
As I said, God cannot evolve, He is, and always will be God.
What evolves is OUR perception, OUR belief.
God is an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful being:
**if he wanted the Amalekites completely destroyed why rely on man to do the job?
**Being omnipotent , God is incapable of anger, jealousy and vengence since they are "sins" and it would make God less than perfect. He can still feel disappointment, sorrow, and disgust, I believe.
An angry God would have killed Adam and Eve and started again; a disappointed God would banish them and hope they would learn the error of their ways, do you understand my point?
Islam is closer to the OT than the NT, more Judaic than Christian, because it relys on man's word to say what God wants, and the priests/imams retain control of the interpretation of the word.
The OT and the Koran were written for people that were Middle Eastern,largely illiterate and dependent on oral traditions; in Christianity, the NT tells the story of God made manifest on earth; a God that came to bring man back into the fold, to reconcile with the God they had disappointed, the God who made a great sacrifice so that Man would have access to Paradise once again.
Now you know how it feels...pretty smart little cookie, aren't you?
I had a great teacher. My mother taught me everything I know! LOL
Thanks Fred!
Nice going Jan! ;o)
Don't tell Jan but Iowahawk has the preempted the Tin-Foil-Turban brigade Al Jazeera by reporting on the possibility of another "humanitarian disaster caused by exposure to potentially harmful finger ink" here.
;oP
Now why didn't I think of that? What a brilliant solution to the problems in the Middle East.
You make good points here, and I appreciate the civil tone.
I saw "Anger" just as one of the "7 Deadly Sins" and had not considered "Righteous Anger".
I always liked the quote from Dryden "Beware the fury of a patient man."
I believe that the "wicked" actions God asks man to do are tests of some sort, and a chance for man to grow.
Good response.
Agreed on why we are here.
God wants worship, but also growth as souls.
We experience pleasure, pain, pride and humiliations, all these things that we may grow wise and be better equipped for that land on the far shore.
The only way to make sense of this life is to keep that eternal perspective and not despair.
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.