Posted on 11/30/2002 5:55:25 PM PST by Michael2001
(Ministries Today) Our missionaries working in Islamic countries are often shocked at some of the ideas being promoted in the West about Islam. What we hear in the press is a confusing mix of relativistic propaganda and wishful thinking, so I thought I'd clear the air with some information explained to me by my friends working with Muslims in the Middle East.
First, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world--not 2 billion--as many reporters have falsely reported. The most generous estimate is 1.2 billion.
Second, most Muslims interpret the Quran by the principle of nasikh, which essentially means that the later passages supercede the earlier passages and totally negate them.
The Quran was written over a 22-year period. In the early years, when Muhammad's following was small and he was militarily weak, he wrote the 114 verses that speak of living peacefully with others. By the end of his writing, when he was militarily strong and had a larger following, he penned verses that declare that all infidels must be destroyed or submit to being totally subjected and humiliated.
Sura 9 appears at the beginning of the Quran, but it is one of the last texts written. It declares that all infidels should be killed or completely subjugated. These later verses, which overrule the 114 peaceful verses, are what drive the current jihad movement.
According to Muslim scholars, the Arabic words nasikh and mansukh are both derived from the same root word nasakha, which carries meanings such as “to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate.” The nasikh (an active participle), “the abrogating,” while mansukh (passive) means “the abrogated.” In technical language, then, mansukh refers to certain parts of the Quranic revelation that has been “abrogated” by the others. In other words, for fundamentalist Muslims, the most virulent passages of their sacred text have priority.
So, when we Westerners talk about Islam by quoting the early “revelations,” we are not communicating the truth about fundamentalist Islam and the Quran but are actually inoculating and misleading those within our spheres of influence against the true nature of Islam. No doubt, a few Muslim scholars have tired to negate the “annihilate the infidel” passages, but their arguments are weak, convoluted, unconvincing and considered non-mainstream to the most vocal and influential fundamentalist Muslim scholars throughout the world.
These scholars are the equivalent of those in liberal Christianity who try to manipulate the Bible to make a case for homosexual marriage or “save the whales” instead of “save the people” ideologies. These liberal interpretations are, to most of us, easily identifiable distortions of the biblical text. Likewise, many Muslims view the peace-loving Muslim clerics the way we would view our own liberal theologians.
Al-Hazar University in Egypt, the highest regarded Muslim theological seminary, teaches the nasikh principle and its inevitable application to jihad. Most of the radicalized leaders have been trained there, including Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind cleric who is imprisoned in Minnesota for his role in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Simply put, it’s time for all of us to learn more details about Islam. As we do, we’ll discover that the sinister spirit of violence and hatred that inflames so many fundamentalist Muslims is indeed the attitude taught in the Quran.
Article reprinted with permision from the December 2002 issue of Ministries Today.
AR
This only makes sense if "fundamentalist Islam" is "the true nature of Islam." One can see how he comes to this, since the good Rev. Robertson is likely to equate "fundamentalist Christianity" with "the true nature of Christianity."
I just came across a 30 year old book, "The Arab Mind," studied by my father-in-law before he went to Saudi Arabia as a large corporation's exec to do business there. I've been testing the points made in this book (written long before the advent of Political Correctness, and by a Jew as well) against several years' personal exchanges with an Egyptian Arab colleague. Thus far, this book explains many things I have seen and experienced.
One point that comes through is that, long before its recent prominent appearance on the world stage, "fundamentalist Islam's" (radical Islamist's) nature is likely to be very attractive to, and will reinforce, certain elements of the Arab (cultural) character. Wahhabinist theology was still in the backwater when this book was written, but it fits the presented character to an amazing (and perhaps horrifying) degree.
I'm not about to whitewash Islam. (A fundamentalist Christian friend of mine who grew up Muslim says it is the religion of the devil.) Nor will I excuse the evils done in the name of Islam -- any more than I condone, say, the Inquisition, or the underlying basis for Henry the VIII's founding of a new church. But Islam is now where Christianity was not so long ago -- controlled by those to whom it represents their path to power, wealth and (in one form or another) revenge. Whether it can "grow up" to exist in a secular world (and suffer the fate of the diminishing and increasingly irrelevant Christian churches in the increasingly secular West?), whether it can minimize its major frictions with (in rough order) Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and the agnostic/atheist/pagan world is another matter.
I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
After we use a page of the koran to wipe ourselves with we interpret the result.
We interpret the part that's covered with feces to be 'abrogated' by the part which is merely stained, but still readable.
On a day after I enjoy chili, many changes have been noted in the (un)holy book!
Damn!
That's why the turkey tasted strange, and I felt so sick later!
Left Hand... Left Hand... Left Hand...
I've gotta remember that!
Truth_seeker responded: That is okay. They gotta win many battles. Let the word be spread, by word of mouth, by fair newspapers, by the internet. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a speech to "Muslim-Americans" Nov. 18, said he is attempting to expand programs within his agency to bring educators, journalists, political and religious leaders from Islamic countries to the United States. In making his case, Powell declared: "We must not listen to the siren song of the bigots, extremists who cloak themselves in false spirituality in an attempt to divide and to weaken us." 11-29-2002 The Balkan States of America - Powell: "We must not listen to the siren song of the bigots" 11-18-02 Bush and Powell Come Down Hard on Christian Right's Views on Islam
Focusing on the battles is one thing... slamming those who are putting facts on the table is another.
How do the following examples fit into a sound agenda for the WOT?Days after the televangelist Pat Robertson said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse" than the Holocaust, Mr Powell told a gathering in Washington: "This kind of hatred must be rejected." 11-15-02 Colin Powell Again Attacks Christian Conservatives
For a good literal translation see Houque.
Also at amazon.com:
Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View of Islam
Why I am Not a Muslim, by Ibn Warraq
Correct. When comparing the Koran to the Bible you need to separate the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The Old Testament is a record of the struggle of the Jewish people against their enemies (Hittites, Amorites, etc). The New Testament is the record of the fulfillment of God's Word, embodied in Jesus Christ. As a Christian I see the OT as the historical prelude leading up to the NT, which records the climax of God's plan, i.e., Jesus Christ.
Jesus never advocated violence, even against the Roman occupiers of his country. He converted Simon the Zealot (probably an anti-Roman terrorist, sort of like Hamas) into a man of peace. And when Peter cut off the ear of the Roman soldier, Jesus healed it; his last miracle before he went with the Roman soldiers to die.
As a Christian I believe that the Koran and the New Testament are antithetical to each other: One preaches war against all non-believers (Sura 8:39), death to infidels (Sura 2:191), and hatred -- specifically against Jews and Christians (Sura 5:60, 9:29). The other preaches peace (John 14:27), to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:39), to love one another (John 13:34-35), to love your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14), and to love your enemy and to pray for them (Matt 5:44).
Don't take my word for it. Read both for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Jesus told us that we can judge people by their fruits.
Take a look at the Muslim world, and discern what fruits Islam has brought forth:
War, terrorism, hate, slavery, persecution, repression, brutality, misogyny, etc.
On the positive side, I will admit that there were a few impressive cultural achievements at a few urban locations for a few years during the Islamic "golden age" almost a millennium ago. Examples: the Taj Mahal; the 1001 Nights. But these seem to be rather few and inferior compared to what has been ceated by most other great civilizations.
I will also admit that Islam is a relatively clean, non-idolatrous religion, and with the exception of its attitudes and relations toward females and infidels, emphasizes some commendable ethical principles. Again, though, there is nothing particularly unique about this.
I am left to conclude: there is much about Islam that is true and good, and much about Islam that is unique; however, nothing that is true and good in Islam is unique, and everything in Islam that is unique is neither true nor good.
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.