Posted on 11/29/2001 10:30:57 AM PST by EclipseVI
Myself included, there are over one billion humans on earth who call God by his Arabic name, Allah. Out of that billion, over seven million of us call America our home. Many of us are born as Americans, study in American institutions and go on to work and pay American dollars to our tax system. Like everyone else, we eventually find our better half, have chubby babies, go to zoos, get season tickets to the Chicago Bulls, go on our childrens' field trips and fix the leak in our roofs. With all the growing pains in the life that we lead as normal Americans, everyday we turn our face to Mecca to pray to what our Christian brothers call God, our Jewish sisters call Yahweh and whom we call Allah.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism have exactly the same origin. We each believe in the monotheistic deity of Abraham, who was the father of all three of these noble religions. Islam's moral and ethical standards are equivalent, if not more stringent, than those of modern day Christianity and Judaism. We, as Muslims, believe in every prophet of both Judaism and Christianity. We believe the world began with Adam and Eve and great prophets, namely Moses, Aaron, Jacob, Joseph and Jesus (peace be upon all of them) were all divinely inspired by God.
We revere Jesus as a great prophet and the messiah of God. He is mentioned by name in the Quran 33 times. We equally revere the Virgin Mary as the mother of the Messiah. She is the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran and she is mentioned 34 times. Anyone who says Muslims don't respect women, read the entire chapter dedicated to Mary (peace be upon her). How many times was our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) mentioned by name in the Quran? Five.
In Islam, a woman receives a monetary dowry from her husband, of which he has no legal claim. A woman is not obligated to change her maiden name. CNN happily broadcasts women being oppressed by the Taliban regime. Islam abhors the oppression of women. The Taliban says women are not allowed to work, yet the Prophet Muhammad's wife, Khadijah, was one of the most successful merchants in all of Arabia. Should we base our belief on a bunch of tribal warlords or the teachings of our Prophet?
In Islam, both men and women have to dress modestly. One aspect of this modest dress for women is the hijab (head covering). This is a religious mandate, but whether a woman decides to wear it or not, is an issue between her and Allah, because as the Quran categorically states, "there is no compulsion in religion." The hijab symbolizes empowerment, not oppression of women. It allows women to be judged on the content of their character, rather than the physical features that we men today objectify onto them. When we see a nun covered from head to toe in her habit, we commend her on her devotion to God. But when we see a Muslim woman wearing hijab, she is oppressed. In how many likenesses of the Virgin Mary, sculptures or paintings, is her hair not covered? Not one. Was she oppressed? Hardly.
Muslim American is not a paradox. As Muslim Americans we currently live in a diaspora having to deal with an attack on our, yes, our, country. We also have a dual anxiety because our way of life, which is not far different from our Christian and Jewish counterparts, is under attack.
I am a law student. I study international human rights. I have been to U2, Sarah Maclachlan, Dido and Outkast concerts. I have been a ball boy for the Chicago Bulls. I have owned a Ford Mustang. I pray for peace and have read Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech ninety-six times. I may be a dreamer, but I promise you, I am not the only one.
I am a Muslim and I am an American. I am proud of both and will compromise neither.
He is, however, a law student, thus demonstrating that he has some pretty terrible role models.
Matthews pressed him--"What do they have in common?" The guy says, "They're all human beings" (Q from CM)--"they're all males..." Matthews says "go on, what else." The rat bastard stopped in his tracks and refused to speak further.
He also said it was OK to look for terrorists, but not to look in Islamic neighborhoods unless we look in all neighborhoods (since there are no "islamic terrorists.")
I know the logic sucks, but that's what he said. Believe It....or Not!
I hate people who try to insinuate that I should deny the divinity of Christ also, and bow down to a false-front sham-god in a Potemkin "religion." And if I don't I can be abused, taxed, sold into slavery, killed, whatever.
No Jew would even think of such a thing in his worst moment. Only the spiritually corrupt who call themselves "moslems" are obscene enough to spew that forth.
So which of you islamic einsteins are we supposed to believe, as you deign to tell us our own faith?
You can repeat and elaborate the details of your paranoid delusional system a million times, but that will never make it true.
Sir, why so much hatred in your posts? Yes, I site the Qur'an; as a Muslim, should I do otherwise? Yet, also as a Muslim, I also accept ALL revealed books from God - that would included the "original" books revealed to Moses (Torah) and to Jesus (Gospels).
As for my repeating and elaborating on my "paranoid and delusional system" as you put it - when I see my "way of life" being unfairly attacked, slandered and lied upon by those who would be "experts in Islamic doctrine," I am sometimes compelled to defend it. However, if my repeating and elaborating offend you, I suggest you ignore it.
Interesting articles. If those articles are true, it is clear from my previous postings that for Muslims to kill or harm anyone solely because they happen to be non-muslim is not consistent with Islamic doctrine.
When we consider that even in the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, Christians and Jews were tolerated, as long as they did not attempt to convert Muslims to their faiths. Recent reports on CNN - "A Priest Among Mullahs," I think the title was, and the report in last Saturday's Washington Post about two Jewish Rabbis in Kabul, bears this out. So, while I cannot say with absolute certainty that what is claimed in the reports you site didn't happen, I can say with absolute certainty that if it did, it is not consistent with Islam and is certainly the exception and not the rule.
Your reports specifically site Saudi Arabia. Even in this often sited country, where non-muslim houses of worship are prohibited, the persecution of non-muslims, solely because they are non-muslims, is also prohibited. It is well known that many non-muslims live and work in Saudi and it also well known that religious non-muslims are permitted to practice their religions in their homes. The prohibition is not on the practice of religions other than Islam; the prohibition is on the building and establishment of non-Islamic places of worship in what is referrred to as "the Guardian of the House of Allah in Mecca." An analogy would be, the construction of Mosques, Temples, Synagogues, or even other denominations of Christian churches in the Vatican.
Funny thing is, though I have called someone, directly, a "bigot" on a few occasions when IMO they were speaking as such, the post you refer to isn't such a case. In this case I didn't use the word "bigot", but rather "bigotry."
i don't know, and neither do you.
prove me wrong...
Which in the case of the Roman Catholic Church was a substantial number, the majority of Christendom.
And what's more, the nations that adhered to that particular Church included all the major world powers at one time or another, up until the Reformation.
Thus, when these people spoke of "the Church," and of "Christendom" and "Christianity," they meant the Roman Catholic Church.
Even now, the great majority of non-Roman Catholic Christian sects--not including my own, as it happens--are descended from Roman Catholicism.
In effect, for probably five-sixths of the world's Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is "the mother Church" and synonymous with Christianity itself.
Again, note: I have no personal agenda in this regard; I am a "Mormon" and we claim no relationship or tie to Roman Catholicism whatsoever, and many of our doctrines are very foreign to the Roman Catholic tradition.
I'm speaking in the Historical sense, while you are preoccupied with abstract philosophical concepts (no insult intended, that's just an observation).
And in Human Events, the REALITY of history is more important than the tenets of philosophy.
Back to my original point: This is why people here and elsewhere tend to blame ALL ISLAM for what a relatively minor offshoot of Islam is doing in "fighting jihad."
It would be like targeting "Mormons" for reprisal in some obscure part of the world because, four hundred years previously, a Roman Catholic nation like Spain had subjugated the people there. Those who don't understand the distinctions, and the subtleties of philosophy, would be apt to make such a a connection when there is none.
I'm sorry, but I didn't imply that. I am simply saying that if ANYONE, not pointing fingers in particular, wants to use the rejection of Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God as a basis to "prove" that Islam is a "wicked" religion, then they're going to have to apply the same argument to Judaism.
I in fact am implying the opposite: You cannot fault either of them for the darkness of their doctrines. Christ invites all to come, eat and drink without money and without price. Some will refuse their invitation. It doesn't make me angry or fearful of them, it makes me sorrow.
Just curious: in your opinion, those prior to Nicea were not Christian? Those who did not accept that doctrine after Nicea are not Christian either?
Wasn't that the decision of men, not God?
To the best of my memory, SarahW is right. We owe much to Islamic scholars in the sense that they did not allow then-existing knowledge to die.
This is not smal feat, considering that the Western empire had fallen to Goths and other barbaric tribes. Having come in contact with Bysantium, it was the Islamic scholars who preserved Aristotle and other Greeks for us. They translated it into Arabic; Greek contributions were studied and debated among them while among the Romans these perls of wisdom were largely forgotten.
Much of that preserved knowlege has been re-introduced to the West via Moorish Spain, where cultural life flourished until the reqonquest (starting with the 12th centuries and ending with the fall of Granada at the end of 15th). Many ideas of mathematics and astronomy, regardless of whence originated, have been also preserved and sharpened during that period by Islamic and Jewish scolars (I read an account of how Jewish cartographers provided maps for the voyage of Columbus. I do not remember the details; by that time they may have converted to Christianity under the preassure of Inquisisiton; the point is that even the exploration of the New World has benefited from knowledge preserved in Moorish Iberia.)
In effect, for probably five-sixths of the world's Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is "the mother Church" and synonymous with Christianity itself. Have you tried to tell the last sentence to your Protestant friends?
What were all these accusations against Catholics in America, which existed for hundreds of years until recently? I refer to accusations that American Catholics are loyal to the Holy See more than to America (now these people moved to American Jews who are supposed by them to be more loyal to Israel than to America).
I am not a Protestant, but it is my understanding that the issue whether or not someone (like the Pope) stands between a Christian and God is a very significant one. It has not been my impression that for Protestants "Catholic Church is... synonymous with Christianity itself."
Again, note: I have no personal agenda in this regard. I have never suspected one.
I'm speaking in the Historical sense, while you are preoccupied with abstract philosophical concepts (no insult intended, that's just an observation). None taken. But the question "What is pure Islam?" that you raised in a preceding post is a philosophical (theological) one, and I pointed that out. Whenever we look at something in "Historical sense," we deal with human beings, I agree. Which is why I also referred to church --- a social institution created by humans and different from religion, which is a set of notions.
And in Human Events, the REALITY of history is more important than the tenets of philosophy.
This wording suggests that REALITY is disjoint from philosophy. I disagree: the reality created by humans today is based on their philosophy, which they adopted yesterday. Having observed today's events, they will modify their philosophy. This present-day philosophy affects the way in which humans will try to create reality tomorrow. Ad infinitum.
Back to my original point: This is why people here and elsewhere tend to blame ALL ISLAM for what a relatively minor offshoot of Islam is doing in "fighting jihad."
Hear and elsewhere, people are not taught to differentiate between the religion and the church that promulgates that religion. The reason is very simple -- just ask, "Where do people get their religious education?" In a church, of course. Is it in the interest of that church, any church, to say to the students: "We teach you the truth as we know it. But we ourselves are just mere humans, we make mistakes. So, whenever you see an edict coming from the Holy See, please take it with the grain of salt." Of course not. Recall also that most of this knowledge is acquired at an early age, when we still lack the intellectual sophistication needed for this subtle distinction.
As a result, most people, even at an adult age, think of the church and religion as the same. They do it with respect to their own church and the church of others --- it is an "equal-opportunity" shortcoming.
Thus, it is hard for most Catholics to revisit the issue of crusades. Ask them, as I did in previous posts, whether it was Jesus who ordered them. Ask whether those expeditions have roots in the Bible. Most people never really thought about these matters. Why? Because they have learned about crusades in churches; it was the Church (not Jesus, of course) who ordered crusades; and it is the Church that to this day attempts to portray them as "just war" (note here an appeal to purely modern sensibilities). Just a few days ago, this position was reiterated in Pat Buchanan's column, to which I replied here. It is difficult for modern, present-day Catholic Church to inform ten-year-olds in Sunday school about the streams of blood in which the crusaders drowned pagans and Jews, there fellow Europeans, --- way before they even reached Jerusalem. It was the "holy war," and non-Christians had to go.
Whereas the preceding example illustrates the confluence of own church and religion, the many posts on this and other threads show how people apply the same to Islam. Had most of us bothered to dwell on the distinction between Islam and the "Islamic church" --- in complete parallelism to the religion of Christianity and Catholic (Anglican, Lutheran, Mormon) Church --- we would see immediately that we are at war with "Islamic church" and not the religion of Islam.
We do not need to read Quran to justify our anger and resolve to get those bastards (forgive my language) that have been attacking us for decades. Note that "Islamic church" is a practical, well-defined target. We know or can find out where those sheiks who preach anti-Christian and anti-Jewish hatred are. It is they who brainwash and hire the bandits who take the lives of our people.
Wen we go farther and get into the discussion of "evil" in holy books, we develop prejudice that a Muslim is incapable of tolerance. Such opinion is at odds with both the past (Moorish Spain, to which I alluded earlier) and, more significantly, the present. Witness, for instance, how almost all people who post here have become overnight experts on Quran. Yet they fail to take into account that Turkey is our faithful friend and ally; a democracy for much longer that Christian Russia; yet a predominantly Muslim country. The Turkish experience shows, therefore, that is is possible to read and have faith in Quran yet not be belligerent, as the current norm in the Arab World. Most people who attack Quran as intrinsically evil prefer to disregard this point.
In sum, when you look at historic reality (which to me implies we are dealing here with the past), you can make an observation that explains many events: people en masse, as they are, have always confused the religion with the church promulgating that religion. This does not absolve us of our responsibility in terms of who we should be. When analyzing the current events, we should understand the difference between Islam (as portrayed in Quran and other sources) and what I refer to as "the Islamic church" (as represented by this sheik who promulgate hatred and terror --- towards us, Israel, India, and elsewhere; there is a prominent sheik in England, which had sheltered him from murder verdicts in some Arab country, who spoke recently about having some day the "flag of Islam at 10 Downing Street").
It does not appear that our positions are principally at odds with each other, thus.
California Cities Support Appeal of LDS Prayer Case BURBANK, CALIFORNIA -- The city of Burbank is appealing a trial court ruling that an LDS prayer at one of its council meetings was unconstitutional since it mentioned "Jesus." Now 34 other California cities have joined Burbank's appeal, hoping to prove that prayers at government functions that mention Christ are constitutional. The prayer was given November 23, 1999 by Bishop David King of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who had volunteered to give the prayer through the Burbank Ministerial Association, an ecumenical group that draws on religious leaders throughout the city for the council's prayers. Following LDS custom, the prayer ended in the name of Christ. But that offended at least one person attending the meeting. Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League said "No Jew, no matter how liberal, can feel totally comfortable with a prayer that includes Jesus Christ. . . . It makes any non-Christian feel like an outsider." Rubin filed a lawsuit against the city, saying that his constitutional rights were violated by the prayer, and in November 2000 a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge issued an injunction prohibiting Burbank from "sectarian" prayers. Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, prayers may still be made by ministers, but the injunction prohibits them from being specific to any religion. Attorneys representing the 34 California cities filed a 28-page brief Tuesday with the California state Court of Appeal, asking the court to overturn the ruling. "Dozens of cities and towns throughout California begin their meetings once a month, or twice a month as the case may be, with an invocation. Thirty-four of those municipalities are sufficiently alarmed by the trial court's opinion to join in this brief and urge reversal of that opinion," wrote attorney Peter Pierce in the brief. Pierce also claims that the injunction that Rubin got actually violates the constitution, "The terms of the judgment violate the free speech rights of the volunteers, representing a multitude of faiths, who deliver the invocation at Burbank City Council meetings," he writes. But Rubin's attorney, Roger Jon Diamond, disagrees, "It does not violate the 1st Amendment for the state to hire a full-time chaplain to provide invocations or prayer before legislative meetings, but that's not our issue," said Diamond. "We did not challenge the invocation in general. We challenge the nature of the invocation. The answer is that there is probably no case right on point on either side. If there were, there would be no reason to litigate this." Source: Cities flock to Burbank's defense Los Angeles Times 24Nov01 T4 http://www.latimes.com/tcn/burbank/news/la-bl0006859nov24.story?coll=la%2Dtcn%2Dburbank%2Dnews By Ryan Carter
Oh, and note this article isn't from the LAT, which is merely the source, but from MormonNews, an Internet news service.
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.