Posted on 03/27/2003 8:26:19 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
I was completely numb as I watched the videos of the attack on September 11. As the attack was investigated and we learned that the perpetrators were Islamic terrorists, I could not shake the thought that something in their religion made these attacks seem legitimate in their eyes.
So I started, very cautiously, to look into what Islam stands for and what it considers important. I did not want to jump to conclusions. I wanted to know the truth. As a Christian and a serious student of the Bible, I am familiar with the bloody passages of the Old Testament. For this reason I proceeded with caution in my research. My goal was to discover the truth about Islam. My research did include some limited reading of the Qur'an (known in the West as the Koran), but it mainly consisted of reading and listening to people who were very knowledgeable of the religion.
First of all, in order to understand Muslims we need to know what they think of Allah, and we need to look at their worldview. We need to understand moderate Muslims, but we also need an understanding of the radical point of view.
Dr. Samuel Schlorff, an expert on Islam with Arab World Ministries, has written an excellent paper on the religion. He makes a scholarly comparison between Christianity and Islam. Much of the information used in this article regarding the history of Islam was drawn from this paper.
Here are some key points of Islamic theology:
1. Allah is Absolutely Transcendent
Allah is unlike anything that exists. This means that Allah is completely mysterious. Muslims believe that they can know the truth about him, but they can't have any knowledge of him as a person. He is a distant god who lets only his will be known.
2. Divine Guidance
Muslims believe the Qur'an offers guidance for living life and it is usually referred to as "a guidance and mercy for believers." (Sura 27:77) Their law (the Shari'ah) consists of the Qur'an as well as other materials.
3. Islam is from Heaven
The Qur'an describes its revelation as a "sending down" of material from a heavenly being. Because it came in the Arabic language, it is referred to as a heavenly language. From this idea stems the thought that an Islamic community is of heavenly origin. Dr. Nabil Jabur was interviewed recently on Moody radio. He is the author of the book The Rumbling Volcano, which deals with radical Islam. He states that the Qur'an is comprised of recitations given by Muhammad, which Muslims believe came from Allah for specific situations. Thus, when Muhammad was experiencing a tranquil period in his life, the tolerant recitations came forth. When he was having problems with three Jewish tribes, the militant recitations came forth. The Qur'an teaches both peace and war.
Some verses dealing with tolerance are:
Sura 2:5-6 - There is no compulsion in religion.
Sura 5:82 - The nearest in affection to the believer are those who say we are Christian.
Dr. Jabur stated. "When only one side of the Qur'an is presented alone, that is not the truth."
4. A Community in Submission
The Islamic view of the world is that man is inherently good. If man is depraved by society, then any government can create a perfect society by enforcing Islamic law. Muhammad was the head of state of Medina, which Muslims believe was a perfect society. This form of Islamic government is considered by Muslims to be an example of living in true submission to divine law. This degree of submission is greater than any that exists outside of Islam. For Muslims such a community represents the kingdom of Allah on earth. They believe the future of Islam is to dominate the whole House of War (which is how they refer to the entire non-Muslim world) until it is controlled by an Islamic state. The ultimate goal is that the entire world be under Islamic law.
What does the word Islam mean? We have been told, that Islam is related to the Arabic word meaning "peace." This is partially accurate, except that the word means a specific kind of peace. A more accurate translation is "surrender" or "submission." It describes the calm that exists when a vanquished soldier lays down his arms in submission. Dr. Schlorff states, "The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence 'in the way of Allah.'"
Sura 2:216 - Fighting is prescribed for you.
Sura 2:190-192 - Fight in the cause of god, those who fight you enslave them. Fight them until there is no more persecution and oppression and there prevails justice and faith in god.
Sura 9:5 - Fight and enslave infidels.
During his interview Dr. Jabur was asked what the typical Muslim would think of Osama bin Laden. Would they approve or disapprove of what he is doing? He stated that it would be possible for religious Muslims to have either opinion. Some are embarrassed by what bin Laden is doing. Others think that grievances which have existed for years have come to a head in a justified violent retaliation.
Dr. Jabur tried to illuminate the meaning of a phrase which is used by Muslims and which has not been explained to us. Jihad does not mean holy war. Jihad means "striving for god." It comes in three degrees: 1) Striving against sin in one's own life; 2) The act of motivating others to do good; and 3) Using violent means to stop a wrong act is justifiable if necessary. This third degree is the one with which we are most familiar.
After Muhammad died in Medina he was succeeded by four caliphs who ruled in his place. (A caliph is "one who comes after.") The leadership of Muhammad's Islamic society was divided. Sunnis accept that all four were legitimate. Shi'ites believe that only one, Ali, was the rightful successor. The result has been a division within the Muslim world pertaining to Islamic law and spiritual authority. That is why we do not have a single Muslim leader to whom the world can appeal to stand up and lead the Muslims of the world away from bin Laden.
Shortly after the Attack, Chuck Colson brought up some very interesting points on his radio show, Breakpoint. He stated that due to the lack of widely recognized Islamic leadership, bin Laden is attempting to unify the radical Muslims living in moderate Muslim states. He would like nothing more than to have them overthrow those states so that he can unify them and install himself as the leader of one large radical Islamic nation, and wage war against the West. As evidence of this, he pointed out that bin Laden has not shown much interest in the Palestinians in the past. Now he is speaking out in their behalf in order to gain their support.
Of course most Muslims do not support such violence as terrorism. However watching a Muslim country being bombed day after day might change the minds of even the most moderate and cause them to support bin Laden. Perhaps that is the plan: Goad Muslims into hating the West so much that anything goes. The Qur'an supports both violence and peace. They may think that they can use violence now and then have peace on their own terms later
Luis still thinks they're lying to us.
The Taliban are not Arabs. The Chechens are not Arabs. Neither are Jamaat al Fuqra, Jamaat al Tabligh, Jemaat i Islamyia or Abu Sayyef. Hezbollah is funded by the Iranians.
Their targets and victims include France, Italy, Germany, Russia, India, Australia, the Philippines, as well as America and Israel.
Certainly there are Arabs involved, but the foes we fight are not united by Arabic.
Sorry. Your sneering admonition to TLB is not warranted.
IMO, if your position even remotely resembles oppressing thousands of peaceful American Muslims, who go about their businness every day and bother no one, stripping them of their First Amendment Rights, then:
1) You're carrying Osama's water. You would validate every word he spoke.
2) You obviously don't have anything about Christianity to teach me.
3) Your mindset is one that people such as Osama would exploit. He loves zealots such as yourself, as they elevated him to a position of authority and now help maintain it.
"Carrying Osama's water..." LOL!
You are correct about one thing. I am a zealot for Christ. There is only one way to God and it ain't through Islam.
I have a Muslim friend that is a very nice lady. She is Palestinian. AFAIK, she does not advocate anything such as what the jihadists do. I suppose I should ask her if she would like her "First Amendment Right" stripped from her? < /sarcasm>
The fact that America has thousands of peaceful Muslims still does not obviate the fact that a large percentage of the Muslim world has declared war on the West (Christianity and Judiasm). Go to www.memri.org if you don't believe me.
Have a day.
We should be careful before assuming that a recognition of a Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West implies a desire to oppress those Muslims who actually do live peacefully among us.
The question on the table is this:
Do Islamic moderates represent "true Islam," or are the elements of Islam that are intransigently hostile to us the true spiritual heirs of Mohammed?
I've come to the latter conclusion, but I also recognize the benefit of fighting against a fractionalized opponent, rather than a coherent, pan-Islamic jihad. The best course, it seems to me, is to correctly identify our foes and thier motives, while prudently avoiding actions that would make them a more dangerous enemy.
Well, gee, pal. The Qur'an really doesn't say anything about killing the infidel, does it?
Can't do that. We have laws against it. The first Amendment does not protect religious violence, just the right to worship.
Yes. From Day one he has tried to paint this as a war against Islam as opposed to a police action, brought about both as a result of his crimes and the reluctance of the Taliban to fork him over.
Agreed.
I don't know what you're talking about. But her right to worship peacefully, and in adherance ot our laws is absolute.
We will punish terrorism. We have no right to punish peaceful, American Muslims. They are protected by our Constitution.
Do I have a choice?
When I saw the Arab Street jumping up and down in glee on 9/11, I knew the world had changed.
I don't have to assume it, the poster in question admitted such. He has called for this repeatedly in fact, all over the forum.
IMO, that's a huge mistake.. if for no other reason (of which there are several, actually) than the "benefit of fighting against a fractionalized opponent" you cite.
As far as the question of Radical Islam being the mainstream.. I honestly don't know.
The Bible, for example is very plain and explicit.. Yet you see very spirited arguments on the interpretation of scripture that exist to the present day. I know that personally I have big problems with the way some passages are intrepreted by my Catholic bretheren.
I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..
He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?
Then learn to read. That was the point of my post.
It was prefaced as such.
The world didn't "change" we lost a building and 3,000 people.
If David Mitchell aka Emmanual actually had been able to get his new religion off the ground, would it be much different from Islam? Emmanual took a 14 year old girl as his "wife" but wasn't Mohammed's little girl only 6? A pedophile is a pedophile. Judaism had some polygamy in the early years but no indications that pedophilia was ever acceptable. Christians follow Jesus who certainly wasn't a polygamist or pedophile.
I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..
He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?
It's understandable to try and find some sectarian conflict in our experience, and try to construct an analogy regarding Islam. However, I think the utility in that is limited, and the reason is the objective difference between the moral character of Jesus and that of Mohammed.
Reasonable people can look at the worst atrocities committed ostensibly in the name of Christ, and objectively say that those who committed the offenses were not acting as Jesus did, or would. Yet when we look at the worst atrocities of Islam, we can objectively say that the transgressors were acting just as Mohammed did and would; which is exactly the opposite of our observation of faithful Christian behavior.
Despite differences in doctrine, the vast majority of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are in fundamental agreement on the nature of Christ. It is Christ's nature, and our agreement upon it, that have rendered bloody sectarian strife between Christians, or between Christians and other religions, ever more infrequent. Most Christians understand that to initiate bloodshed is not Christian.
An atheist or an agnostic wouldn't mind having a neighbor who emulated the behavior of Christ in his day to day life. It's hard to imagine they'd like a neighborhood full of people who emulate Mohammed.
The initiation of bloodshed is very Mohammedan.
In addition, we're also aware of a vast number of so-called Islamic moderates who nevertheless make every conceivable excuse for the atrocities of their co-religionists. How moderate can the really be?
Far more rare is the Muslim who actually condemns the brutality of the civilization spawned by his religion. They deserve all the credit in the world for the courage of their stand, even though they are not yet ready to reject the source of that brutality.
In a way that's what it is ---Islam is an Arab Nationalist religion ----but there are other kinds of Islam ---except that all Islam originates from the Arabs. I've met Persians who aren't like Arabs ---they don't even like them, they aren't as hate-filled, they call themselves Muslim but I think they're Islam is influenced somewhat by what they were before ----they'll even admit Islam was imposed on them by the Arabs but they had a flourishing culture of their own previously.
When I say "power over others", I mean the ability to FORCE others to obey your will, whether they want to or not. Simple persuasiveness is influence, not power.
Desire for money is OK, if it is satisfied by producing something of value to exchange for it, but evil if it is satisfied by using physical power to rob or intimidate
Desire for sex is OK, if it is satisfied by persuading the other person to cooperate voluntarily, but evil if you use power to rape or intimidate the other into cooperating
That's why I say "the essense of evil is the lust for power over others" -- it is the decision to satisfy your desires thru the use of force rather than free exchange and cooperation, because you don't want to go thru the effort needed to satisfy your desires thru exchange, persuasion, and cooperation
Nice picture, though.
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.