So this is how democracy works?
In 2004, France banned headscarves and school principals chased after young “defiant” Muslim girls who continued to cover their heads in school. Now, following a national referendum, Switzerland has banned the construction of minarets, because minarets also somehow symbolize oppression. Thanks to the dedicated action of the far-right Swiss People’s Party, the Alpine skies will be free from the snaking menace, which would spread intolerance and taint the splendor of Swiss architecture.
In between these two peculiar events, the targeting of Muslims in Western countries and the subjugation of entire Muslim nations all over the world has never ceased. Not for a day.
Moreover, the collective targeting of small or large Muslim communities in Western countries, and the deliberate abuse and degradation of Muslim individuals and Islamic symbols (from the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed) has also never ceased.
Bizarrely, most of these actions have been done through “democratic” channels and justified in the name of democracy, on the basis of upholding the principles of secularism and Western values.
Many thoughts come to mind here; all unreservedly angry.
I remember when the word “democracy” used to resonate so loudly among Arabs and Muslims around the world. The more they were denied it, the more they yearned for it. University campuses in Cairo, Gaza and Karachi took their student union elections so very seriously. Innocent blood was spilled in clashes around campuses as students desperately tried to express their right to vote, to speak out and to assemble.
Those were the days, when al-demoqratia, Arabic for democracy, was the buzzword in the Middle East and beyond. Even Palestinian political prisoners held their elections, ever so faithfully, surrounded by highly fortified towers and under the deriding gaze of armed men in the unforgiving heat of the Naqab desert.
Arab and Muslim masses were keen on democracy to the extent that there was a near consensus that democracy, although a Western conception, could be distinguished from the many ills invited by Western interventions, imperialism and wars that scarred and continued to impair the collective Muslim psyche.
An entire school of Muslim thought was in fact established around the concept that democracy and Islam are very much compatible. Such a notion goes back to Egypt’s Azharite scholar Rifa’a al-Tahtawi, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that the principles of European modernity were compatible with Islam.
“Al-Tahtawi’s work influenced the philosopher Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905], another Azharite who is often described as the founder of Islamic modernism, which is captured in his statement that in Europe he found Islam without Muslims, while in Egypt he found Muslims without Islam,” wrote German anthropologist, Frank Fanselow.
If one sets his prejudices aside to ponder this for a moment, one would realize the intellectual valor it takes to consider and even embrace commonalities with the very powers that have instilled so much harm and fear.
Even in their darkest, least proud moments, Muslim intellectuals and nations displayed impressive open-mindedness. They are hardly ever credited for that.
More recently, in Egypt, people tried hard to vote, in the face of beatings, public humiliation and imprisonment. In Palestine in 2006 the price was even higher – starvation. Gaza continues to endure under a medieval Israeli siege, ultimately because of an election.
Muslim communities in the West have long been considered the luckiest; after all, they live in the abodes of democracy. They drink from the fountain of rights and freedoms that never runs dry.
However, these idealized assumptions missed the fact that Western democracy was conditional. And unconditional democracy can only be a farce.
Much has been said to explain the West’s faltering on its own commitment to democracy. No, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is hardly the defining moment that created the growing chasm that made the West fearful of Islam. Despite all that has taken place since then – the constant spewing out of right-wing hatred, evangelical fanatic preaching and all the rest – America is still more tolerant than Europe. Nor was the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe a response in solidarity to America’s woes.
Honestly, the French are not fond of Americans, nor are the Germans necessarily that passionate about the Swiss. But this didn’t stop a German Christian Democratic state interior minister, Volker Bouffier, from making a “recommendation” to Muslim communities in his own country: “Naturally the Muslims in Germany have a right to build mosques. But they should make sure not to overwhelm the German population with them.”
How do you overwhelm people with minarets? Is this a post-post-post-modernistic logic that we are yet to be informed of?
There are only four minarets in the entire country of Switzerland, a country with a population of approximately 7.6 million people. How overwhelming can that be? And aren’t religious freedom and the freedom of collective and individual expression basic rights guaranteed by democratic values?
But this is hardly about a 4.8-meter tall minaret in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal. It’s about the fact that the one who suggested the structure is a Muslim furniture salesman by the name of Mutalip Karaademi. He didn’t know, of course, that his modest idea of adding a minaret to the community’s mosque would generate a nationwide referendum, and an international “controversy”.
Karaademi was not trying to “Islamificate” the Swiss. He just wanted his community to have a place for worship (as opposed to the unused paint factory it currently uses for prayer), to be able to express its collective identity without fear. Ironically enough, the Muslim community in Langenthal is mostly Albanians, refugees who fled Kosovo seeking escape and deliverance.
What a strange paradox: Muslims escaping to the West, physically and figuratively, only to find double standards, self-negation and, at times, pure hypocrisy.
For now, however, a new consensus is forming: democracy can be invoked and used against Muslims only, and not for Muslims. It can be manipulated to deny them their identity in Europe and their freedom in Palestine, to ensure their subjugation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to meddle in their internal affairs everywhere else.
Al-demoqratia, indeed.
Western response to this article “:The Hypocrisy of the relgiously tolerant west tolerating the Intolerant.” Right out of Edward Said’s play book play–blame it on the other guy all the while the majority of the OIC states take the top spots year after year on the who’s who list of the world’s worst human and religious rights abusers! Least of all lets not mention the Quran which spends 60% of its time bleating on and on about,yes you guessed it, the infidel and almost all of it is negative. There is a reason that in almost all Islamic states the religious minority gets smaller and smaller each year. I wonder why? Could it be persecution that is in fact state law?? Yes because vestiges of Dhimmi laws are rife throughout the Islamic world. Go read the Sira you’ll find 75% of its content focues on Jihad the majority of the offensive nature to spread faith! Were tired of tolerating the intolerant!!!!
Thought of putting a longer response in but this article only deserves a:
“Hey pass me the bong when your done!”
Bill, you trashed this article with the conclusion, “We’re tired of tolerating the intolerant”. I can only conclude you think minarets are “intolerable”, and I’m curious why. I’m also curious whether you think steeples should also be banned.
Jeremy,
Personally I thought the ban was wrong from a liberal deomocratic standpoint. It flys in the face of what we are supposed to stand for. However, as many have noted the ban was a message more than anything saying we are tired of “tolerating the intolerant.” Now why do I say that:
1) Go to any Islamic state and catalog all the rights religious minorities have or don’t have. Emphasis is on what they don’t in comparision to Muslims.
2) Look up what a Dhimmi means and compare the rights/restrictions of dhimmis to laws in modern Islamic states. You will find quite a bit of similarity.
3) As for the ban on Chuch steeples you need to look further to the actual banning or severe restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build non Islamic houses of worship in Islamic states. Please note unlike the Islamic world, which often bans non Islamic houses of worship, the swiss didn’t ban mosque construction.
4) Read up on the conditions of copts in Egypt, Christian/Hindus in Pakistan, and Christians in Iraq/Palestine for some perspective of the daily persecution they live under.
5) Compare the OIC report on Islamophobia to any human rights reports from any number of Islamic states. You will find harrasement in the West with large financial settlement vs death/church torched/state sponsored persecution and often the victims in jail.
6) Compare the Cario Decleration of Humans Rights vs The Universal One. Note how only the Islamic world felt the need to do this and the central points are their rejection of true religious freedom and that all must be governed by Sharia.
I know you have read the Quran but I would encourage you to read a Hadith source and the Sira as well then ask yourself the question I ask myself–“While we have generally shown we will accept Islam in the West the question remains will Islam accept us.” Puritanically speaking Islam cannot accept us simply because of our unbelief. The central condition is that we must submit until we are accepted and given the same rights all Muslims have. They do not believe in the supremacy of man made laws vs. the divine meaning democracy itself is against Islam. Islam is the only faith based group that does not follow the golden rule of live and let live. As a faith it is central to spread faith and again uniquely they have a clear injunction to use force to do so. We don’t see force today simply because they don’t have the ability. If you look through history when they had the means and a Caliph they did resort to force to spread faith. There are several Hadith sources that clearly reference this and even state it is the duty of Muslims to engage in offensive Jihad at least once a year. Your probably thinking I am a nutter at this point and three years ago I would have agreed with.
Three years ago I had a Saudi friend who disowned me stating a verse from the Quran saying we could not be friends. This spurned me to buy a Quran and I found the verse. I then confronted him and he actually tried to convert me and I turned the table. As expected he took offense to it and defended his effort stating his truth was the only truth stating all other religions were corruption. I learned later on he had been attending the Salafist Wahhabi Mosque in Bridgeview Chicago. Since then I immersed myself in the subject and am largely self taught. This was not reading “hate rags” but Islam’s very own scripture and relgious laws across the world.
The scary thing about all of this is if you let the “swiss” model of voting happen across Europe polls say we would see the banning of the mosque itself and cutting off of immigration. Instead of trying to find fault in the West try looking at the Islamic world for some answers. The evidence is in abundance when you look at Islamic civilization today and their scripture. Main stream Islamic ideology simply believes Islam is the only answer and are largely unwilling to budge on that point. It is why unlike any other demographic group across the world they are literally ripping apart the social cohension in many parts of the world. You don’t find Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, or any other faith based group:
1) Creating hundereds of no go zones throughout Europe
3) Comprising over 60% of the know terrorist organiztions of the world
4) Owning the majority of the worlds seperatist movements. Almost all Islamic seperatist movements goals are Sharia.
5) Openly persecuting those of other faiths when they are the majority(See Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Iran, and of course Saudia Arabia.)
6) Have laws banning or severly restricting other faiths, denying citizenship based on faith, have laws stating it takes more than one non Muslim to equal the testimony of on male Muslim, clear laws restricting womens rights, death for those leaving their religion, and a whole bunch more.
7) Exclaim such scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah who defines a person becoming a Muslim when “a perfect dissimilarity with the non-Muslims has been achieved” or Al Ghazali who was the architect of the Islamic world rejecting Greek thought(Critical thinking.) For reference read Al Ghazali’s work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” to see why the Islamic world has such a difficulty with technological and scientific advancement especially so if it comes from the infidels.
8) Cleary divides the world into believer vs non believer. The whole concept of Dar Al Islam(land of peace) and Dar Al Harb(land of war) in Islam cleary shows this.
The reality is only one faith based groups has all these issues. You need to ask yourself is it all our fault or could it be the result of what their faith prescibes. True for both but most ingnore the later. I would also caution of making the mistake of viewing this from your own upbringing or religious beliefs. Islam is unlike any other relegion. Christianity for example is meant as a narrative for us to follow, we accept the Bible was written by man, and we leave unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. Islam on the contrary views the Quran as the word of God and it is inviolate, transcendent, a most importantly prescriptive. Islam is not a guide but a complete manual on how man should live encompassing the religious, political/government, social, and just about any aspect of life. Western civilization is almost the exact opposite and thus the clash because we refuse to submit to the divine prescribe in Islam.
As usual you goaded me into response!! :) If your ever in Chicago email me and I can explain in more detail why I believe what I do. If thay doesn’t work email me and I will send you my phone number. I am not against Muslims and in fact two of my friends are Shia. While we don’t agree on all they do agree their is a prevalent supremacist tone to Islamic ideology that needs to be addressed. Shias so uniquely understand this because they have been for so long persecuted by many Sunnis who view them as apostates.
Thx
Bill
Bill, I don’t understand why you criticize an article that makes a point you agree with, that, in your words, banning minarets is “wrong”. It seems the point you’re making is it’s hypocritical for Muslims to condemn this action. I have a few counterpoints to that.
First, the very point Ramzy was making is that it’s hypocritical for the West to criticize Muslims for intolerance while they pass laws such as this one. I personally have no problem with someone holding a mirror to my face. Let’s look into that mirror together, Bill, and remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the sliver from our brother’s.
Second, I believe comparing free and democratic societies to totalitarian ones is not a fair comparison. Condemning people for the actions of governments they themselves are oppressed under is just not a valid criticism. I personally believe in holding my own nation, and the West in general, to an even higher standard than that which I apply to others. You may not agree, but certainly you must agree an equal standard should apply. I presume this is why you agree this law is “wrong”, because it’s discriminatory and hypocritical. If you can agree with that, why trash an article simply for making a point your agree with?
As for your criticisms of Islam in general, it’s a fallacy to point to actions of individuals worthy of criticism and project that upon Islam as a whole. I could just as easily point to abhorrent actions from people calling themselves “Christians”. But to say this represents what Christianity is is a fallacy. Every criticism you make here of Islam could, applying an equal standard, just as easily be made of Christianity.
Jeremy,
I critize it because as you noted it’s hypocritical but also because of what it ignores. It ignores all the points I provided above and the fact the Islamic world is the world’s leader when it comes to religious persecution. The Swiss action is the actual splinter in our eye while I would say the Islamic world has an entire tree in theirs. Yes we in the West should set an example but sometimes you need to slap the other guy if he is not getting the message. Are we supposed to sit silently by while the Islamic world largely bans our religions and is allowed to freely spread in ours?
If Islam was not part of the equation I would agree with your point on comparing totalitarian vs free democratic states. However as I noted earlier Islam is part and parcel with any government in the Islamic world totalitarian or not. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are prime examples totalitarian states in which both clearly declare Sharia is the basis of their law. In fact even in free democratic Islamic states many of the points I outlined in my earlier post also apply to them. They do because again Sharia is part of their law. It doesn’t matter what kind of state it is because the edicts in Islam persecute under all.
I attack the ideology of Islam because it is the problem. It is why I asked you to read what I suggested. Yes Christians and other religions groups commit horrible acts of violence. The difference is there is no scriptural basis for it. Neither is their a fanatical base of clergy egging on the devoted to persecute or harm the other. If you trully think the points I made can be attributed to Christians please provide some examples. You will be hard pressed and will have to search long and hard. On the other hand I could spend minutes on google and find hundereds pertaining to Islam. The why is because Islam uniquely has a clear doctrine for war, edicts to spread using force, and hundereds of verses casting a negative light on the unbeliever. The fact of the matter is if you cite nasty Christian examples all of them will be done despite Christianity with no scriptural basis.
That is the difference between Islam and other religions–Islam actually condones the points out posted above!!!
Here are some easy to reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/universal_islam.html
In the last article even a Muslim, Adama Dieng critized the Cario DHR stating:
“1. It gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;
2. It introduces, in the name of the defence of human rights an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women;
3. It reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries;
4. It confirms, under cover of the “Islamic Shari’a (Law)”, the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
In closing ask yourself why is that only the Islamic world is having these problems in the West? Just maybe could it be they are generally predisposed to be intolerant of others because it is religiously mandate? You betcha!! The Swiss move was wrong but how many times are we going to let the Bully punch us without hitting back? It is why throughout history the only way the spread of Islam and it’s enforcement of draconian laws targeting relgious minorites was almost always force. Christianity never faced this problem and if you ask your self why you will ironically find many of the answers why islam did.
Thx
Bill
I critize it because as you noted it’s hypocritical…
Bill, I never said it was hypocritical. I strongly disagree. The point is the West is hypocritical. As a Westerner, I’m more interested in removing the plank from my own eye than I am concerned about removing the splinter from my brothers’.
You are also being hypocritical. It was just a very short time ago you criticized an article in Press TV because it, in your view, slammed a Christian holiday. Yet here you are slamming an entire religion (e.g. “I attack the ideology of Islam because it is the problem.”)
Again, to say the governments of Egypt or Saudi Arabia represent the true teachings of Islam is an fallacy.
Yes Christians and other religions groups commit horrible acts of violence. The difference is there is no scriptural basis for it.
Bill, the Quran contains no such calls for genocide as you will find in the Bible. And for one obvious example, just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which in the eyes of many Jews and an enormous number of Christians is justified on a Biblical pretext and the “scriptural basis” that “God gave the land to the Jews”, etc. There is most certainly a fanatical base of Church leaders in America egging on Israeli violence towards Palestinians.
You may not agree there is an actual scriptural basis for this persecution, oppression, and violence, and if not I would likely agree. You may say this is based on false interpretations of the Bible, and I would likely agree. You’re not quick to judge Christianity based on the actions of Christians. Yet that is precisely what you do when it comes to Islam.
The why is because Islam uniquely has a clear doctrine for war, edicts to spread using force, and hundreds of verses casting a negative light on the unbeliever.
Bill, are you saying the Bible has no doctrine for war? Spread of religion by force? Again, I would simply observe the fact that you’ll find no such calls for genocide as you will find in the Bible. Are you saying the Bible doesn’t cast a negative light on the unbeliever? So when it says the unbeliever will be cast into the lake of fire, that doesn’t reflect negatively on one?
There is no basis in the Quran for the characteristics you attribute to Islam, Bill, and I challenge you to support your claims about what Islam is not based on the actions of the Saudi regime, etc., but based on what their holy book actually teaches. You’ll find your position is unsustainable.
Jeremy,
My last post didn’t get through. Maybe my overly verbose responses made us hit a limit! :) In any event I think we are both beating a dead dog at this time. I wanted you to read this latest report from Pew that shows the Islamic world persecutes unlike any other group in the world. I understand their is a casual effect but as I noted I believe the other end of the equation is the discrimination built into their scripture. Here is the report:
http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/restrictions/restrictionsfullreport.pdf
It is a 72 page report but if you read anything look at the charts on page 15, 16, 25, and 26. You will notice except for China, Burma, and couple of others the Islamic countries is disproportionately represented in this survey. Almost none showtowards the bottom that indicates true freedom. The answer as I laid out is the Islamic way of life that clearly places a negative predisposition on the non Muslims of the world. It is why the Christian population in the Middle east has shrunk from 20% to 5% over the past 100 years. In comparision the Muslim population in the West has gone up dramatically. By the way the FBI just put out a report showing statitics on hate crimes in the US. The Jews caputred the top spot at 63% while Muslims only accounted for 7.7% despite having greater numbers in the US.
Thx
Bill
Sorry for the bad english. My writing skills leave a little to be desired. Maybe you guys could put a edit feature on the posts to save poor illiterate saps like me.
jeremy,
No basis? Gee why is it that literally everday that we hear of some act of persecution or violence with the aggresor citing Islam as his motivator? The excuse of this person getting Islam wrong doesn’t float with me anymore simply because of the frequency of these events taking place. Many of these events often cite the hundereds of nasty verses in the Quran and the Hadith. It is why I asked you to look up the definition of a Dhimmi for persepctive. Some will argue these are being taken out of context and I would like to believe that. However, the Quran explicitly says it is the word of God thus it is transcendent, inviolate, and they have no choice but to follow it. Simply put the Quran is not contexual but a message good for eternity. In addition if Mohammed did it then it is a good thing for Muslims to do. Its why Islam central message is to submit while Christianity espouses love even saying to love thy enemy.
The Bible is for a fact contexual and the violent vesrses the Islamists often cite are all meant for a specific time, place, and event. They are in no way a commandment to repeat this or a model for future actions. In addition citing Biblical scripture as giving one land is hardly genocide. If this were true where are the millions of fanatical Christians persecuting Muslims, blowing up mosques, and killing them at random in the West. The reality is either way you don’t find other religions citing and referencing religion to persecute and commit acts of violence at the scale Muslims do today. The reason is other relgions don’t have the scriptural basis to do so and if it does then they have largely commited those verses to the trash bin. Islam has not and all four schools of Sunni Jurisrpudence and the Shia 12er school are still based on laws over a thousand years old!!! We in the west had the reformation and elightenment in which we threw of the chains of religious intolerance. Islam has not and the very essence of Islam discourages this from happening because they are taught not to question God’s word.
You are right to cite the conflict in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas that the West in a way brought this on themselves. The truth however is this problem existed long before the US, Colonialism, and even the Crusades. It is why I implore you to read the scripture I cited to gain a better understanding of it. Islam is not a religon as we see it but a political, religious, and how to live life manual wrapped up as one that one way or another all must submit to. The biggest aspect is it including politics in which, regardless of what type of state it is, Islamic law always ends up being the backbone of that states law. Every instance I cited you has a scriptural basis and their is ample evidence to show it has been around since the inception of Islam. Its why you still see stoning laws, death for gays, death for apostasy, and either death or imprisonment for preaching another faith. For god’s sake slavery was not abolished in the Islamic world until 1960 and that was only done under severe pressure from the West. Technically speaking Slavery is still legal under Sharia and it was why the Islamic world never spawned a Wilburforce to combat it. To boot they still don’t apoligize for it to this very day because Mohammed permitted it!
Are you aware the first war the US actually declared was with an Islamic state, The Barbary States? It was why Jefferson’s Quran is around today. He bought it to uderstand their motivation. Here is what he said after meeting with their envoy:
“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
John Quincy Adams years later said:
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
My god they are both Islamophobes by todays standards. In fact there are any number of earlier western leaders who cited the same things such as Churchill, Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, and many many more. Gee these statements look quite familary don’t they? Jihadists cite them all the time and I wonder what gave them the idea. I would like to believe they are “hijacking Islam” but after my analysis much of what they do has a scriptural basis. If you look through many Jihadists manifestos you will find current causes(ie Israel) but almost all also include the edict of spreading faith so all relgion is for Allah. Many miss this instead focusing on todays causes. Go read the “Al Qaeda Reader” and it clearly shows this message of a universal injunction to fight until all relion is for Allah. Once you understand this it doesn’t really matter what we do the ultimate end game is that we must submit to Islam. The world cheered when Egyptian Islamic Jihad renounced violence but many missed that they never apologized for their actions just stating is was bad for Islam. They did so because the end game is still the same and because they realized military conflict with the infidel world was not winnable today!!!
Now that you think I am really bonkers here are some quick reads for some perspective:
The central point in the Charter of Hamas is:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)”
Bukhari and Muslim Hadith about Judgement Day:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
Crack pot video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uflQPa9iN-g Most Muslims even disown this guy but puritanically speaking he does have many valid points especially if an infidel state is perceived at war with Islam. My Shia friend said many Muslims distant themselves from him because while he may be speaking truth they don’t have the means to implement it thus it is bad for Islam today.
Under Cover mosque to hear it from their mouths:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843
A couple of Islamist web sites:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20214/jihad If I said this I would be an Islamophobe
http://mpac.ie/ Read through any number of articles but take note these guys are devot Salafists
Interesting article that speaks of the western civilization while saying Islam has lost its way today becoming a slave to politics:
http://www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/6/14_Saudi_intellectual__%E2%80%9CIf_it_were_not_for_the_accomplishments_of_the_West,_our_lives_would_have_been_barren%E2%80%9D.html I happen to agree with this guy and after some digging much of what he says is backed up by the early years of Islam. It is why I believe part of the problem in the Islamic world is their adherence to the rote meaning of Hadith even when it contradicts the Quran. A case in point is the fact the Quran says their is no earthly punishement for apostasy yet Hadith says death.
In closing again I ask you to consider why is it that the Islamic faith is the only one having these issues? The reality is the world is only polorazing faith wise around one issue, Islam. Why are they the only target and not Hindus and Buhhdists? I am per say not against Muslims just the divisive ideology that so often springs from their faith. I am trying to point out the elephant in the room everyone misses. Many don’t notice it because we are blinded by our own multicultural and politically correct mindsets. This mindset conditions us to blame ourselves often ignoring that elephant. The West is wrong in so many ways but the other side of conflict is the ideology of Islam that so many refuse to see.
Thx
Bill
Gee why is it that literally everday that we hear of some act of persecution or violence with the aggresor citing Islam as his motivator?
Bill, why is it that literally everyday we hear of some act of persecution or violence with the aggressor citing Christianity, or freedom, or democracy, as his motivator?
Remove the plank from your own eye.
And I again challenge you to provide support for your view of Islam from the Quran. Again, you’ll find you won’t be able to sustain your characterization of the faith.
When Muslim worshipers showed up at the Bilal Mosque early Sunday morning, they found two pig’s ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig’s snout dangled from the doorknob. “White power” and “Sieg heil” were spray-painted on one side, they recalled, and “France for the French” on the other.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804138.html?wprss=rss_world
Jeremy,
Did you not read my link to what a Dhimmi is then compare it modern laws in Islamic states? Jeremy I have been reluctant to spell it out for you because like me I needed to figure it out myself. It is why when ever you take a science course(I was bio chem in College) they always backed up the lesson with lab time. The reason was to reinforce the lesson and let you see it yourself. It was why I so implored you to read the Islamic scripture I cited. I also cited Hadith and Sira because much of Islamic law is derived from those sources rather than the Quran. In any event here are some examples with verses attached:
1) Laws in many Islamic states either prohibit our severly restrict the building or repairing of non Islamic houses of worship:
“We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.” (Pact of Umar Cited in most Hadith sources. You will find very little reference to a Dhimmi other than the title of “people of the book” and that’s why you need to read the Hadith)
2) Islamic law in several Islamic states says the testimony of non Muslim is not Equal to that of a Muslim. In addition this holds true for Muslim females vs Muslim males as well. In Pakistan they have the law of equivalents that states it take 4 males non Muslims to equal the testimony of one male Muslim.
“The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah – may He be exalted – said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers’.” ( Tafsir al-Muraghi–Tafsir is a scholars commentary on the Quran.)
“And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.” (Quran 2:282) Almost all hadith, such as Bukhari 6:301, support it and it is why you find this law in many Islamic states today. The basis for all of this is the Quranic verses some call “The Law of Equality” 16:75-76. The Quran also says “Are those who know equal to those who know not?” verse 39:9
Did you notice in the Cario Decleration of Human rights why they replaced the word rights with “Dignity.” This was a clear example they don’t trully believe non Muslims have the same rights as Islam–only the Dignity Islam allows them to have.
3) Prohibition or severe restrictions on freedom of religon:
“We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.”(Pact of Umar and cited in most Hadith)
Death for those leaving Islam.(Consensus in almost all hadith sources. Bukhari 9:83:17) Ironcially the Quran is quite vague on the issue but a modern Jurist said “There is no compulsion in religion” (la ikraha fi’d din: Qur’an [Qur’an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.”( Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi)
4) Prohibition on taking non Muslims as true friends:
“”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends(Allies); they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people” Quran 5:51. This is a hotly debated subject but those arguing against all use the contexual arguement placin it in a point of time. The error in doing this as stated in my other posts the Quran is not contextual but transcendent meant for all time. There are a number of Hadith sources citing this as well.
A Quranic verse often cited to support this is “”Obey Allah and His Messenger”: But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.(Quran 3:32)”
5) Offensive warefare:
“You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth – among those who received the scripture – until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.(Quran 0:29) This is known as one of the sword verses in the West. There actually 164 Jihad verses in the Quran that clearly say “fight.” The fight may not always be physical but the end result is always the same–all religin for Allah.
“There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately. ( Bukhari 4:52:42)”
“Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause. (Bukhar 1:2:25)”
Modern view:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: ‘Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.(Ayatollah Khomeini)”
“It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah, which will be guarantee that they have opened their doors for the preaching of Islam … (Sayyid Qutb).” The Jizyah is in reference to Jihad and forcing non Muslims to to submit to Islam.
Now what about those tolerant verses:
1) “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.(Quran 2:256):
Sounds great by the this verse was abrogated by all those later Jihad verses such as 9:29. Abrogation in the Quran says: “•When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?(Quran 2:106). Two other vesres in the Quran also mention this. Sunni and Shia jurists of anitquity clearly all agreed that this verse was largely abrogated. This is why you also find the history of Islam littered with broken treaties with those of other faiths.
2) “…it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity…(Quran 5:32):
Sounds great again but the devils in the details. Islamists will often wing this out and only cite that portion of the entire verse. What they leave out was this was a message directed towards the people of Israel, Jews, only. The exact quote reads as ” Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.” Additionally the very next verse 5:33 states the punishement “The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.” Note it prescribes the punishement not only for murder but for simply fighting god!!!
Gee why all the deception? Well Mohammed did say “War is deception” and “He who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.” When you take into context Muslims must fight/strive until all religion is for Allah pay attention because they do an will practice this because their is no greater goal than spreading Islam. One of the time honored traditions of Muslims when dealing with non Muslims is Kitman or Taqqiya simply known as deception to us. Point 1 and 2 above under tolerant verses is Kitman because they ommitted certain facts. Taqqiya is more of Shia angle but was largely used when in battle or in fear of ones life or faith. Today these practices are part in parcel of our modern days Islamists strategies. These Islamists know that cannot defeat us militarily(offensive Jihad) and thus they try to portray the picture of peace and tolerance. It is why they have been pushing through things like the Defamation of Religions and UNHRC and trying to sanatize scirpture for Western consumption. They know full well if all westerners understood the puritanical stance of Islam visa via other faiths they would be in trouble.
Again you state it is the Christians who are at fault. Yes they may be at fault but again it is in no way suported by the Bible! That is the whole point of this discussion. One faith condones it and the other does not. If you still think Christians are at fault cite examples linking them to passages in the Bible and I will be more than willing to debate you on it. You largely won’t be able to except for isolated incidents. While I on the other hand did demonstrate it as noted above. You cited one example with the Bilal Mosque but did not cite a reference in the Bible to encourage it. I can literally cite well over a hudered examples of Muslims acting on Islam and “harrasing” but literally torching the building that have occured in the past year. Here is one example dealing with the copts and notice it was the victim arrested!!!–
http://www.aina.org/news/20090712144135.htm Egypt is and Islamic state that severly restricts construction of Non Muslim hoses of worship that up until recently required Mubarak’s approval(Governors approval now.) These Muslims acting under the concept of the Dhimmi prohibition to build new houses of worship torched it. This happens all the time in Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southern Philipines, Southern Thailand, Nigeria, Kosovo, Bosnia, and any number of other places. Iran literally destroyed or converted every Bahai house of worhip in Iran since 79. Today it’s illegal to practice the Bahai faith in Iran. There is no western parallel to this in terms of scale and scope. You can cite examples but again they are almost all not motivated by faith but more importantly do they find any basis in the Bible. If we were arguing secular violence I would agree with you a hundered percent and cite Iraq, Afghanistan, WWII, WWI, and any number of conflicts that far outstrip the violence coming out of the Islamic world, but again my arguement is about faith based persecution/violence. The Islamic world has the plank not the West! Do the experiment–ie read what I suggested and like me your eyes will open!
Thx
Bill
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. – 1 Tim 2
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. – 1 Tim 2
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. – 1 Cor 14
Etc.
Bill, why do you quote the Quran out of context?
“If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have ben nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.” – 5:56
Your assertion of “offensive warfare” is false, Bill. The Quran could not be more clear that Allah hates “the aggressor”. You are either ignorant about the Quran or simply being dishonest. This refers to those who broke their treaty with Muhammed and his followers and attacked them:
“Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solmen pledges and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?” – 9:13
Etc.
Remove the plank from your own eye, Bill.
Jeremy,
You devil you have format tools I can’t seem to employ to make my post more easily read!!!! Next time I will try typing this in word.
On your points you are forgetting:
1) Puritanically speaking the Quran is not contexual. It is a message meant for all time thus applying the contexual tag doesn’t fly in mainstream Islam. The only context in the Quran is relating the passage in the Quran to a Hadith source thats it. In your defense I personally believe context needs to be added to prevent Muslims seeing this as message for all time. There are some modern scholars in Islam who actually believe this but they are the minority. Sadly though, the fact reamins all major schools of Islamic thought don’t view the Quran, Hadith, or Sira as contexual in the western sense but as a blue print for life good till the end of time.
Read this entry from Islam Q & A about taking Kafirs(infidels) as friends and tell me if I am taking this out of context:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/2179/kaafir
Here is one showing my view on Offensive warefare is correct:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/26125/offensive%20jihad
If you read the Sira you will find literally a mountain of examples of Offensive Jihad. 164 verses in the Quran mention both defensive Jihad and offensive Jihad. It is false to believe Jihad is only defensive.
It should also be noted you might want to find out what an “aggresor” means in Islam. Preventing Islamic dawa, doing missionary work in Islamic states, displaying our faith openly in Islamic states, prohibiting a Muslim from practicing any aspect of his faith, and even persisting in unbelief when the message of Islam is known are often cited as the aggresor in Islam. Even if Muslims are on the march to spread their faith with force those defending themselves are defined as the aggresor because they are upholding its spread. Its why to this very day Islamist cry about the crusades and the retaking of Spain–they trully believe once conqured by Islam it is Islamic for all time!
2) I alluded to the fact the Bible contains nasty verses, but I mentioned they have been largely thrown to the trash bin. We have Jesus and Greek thought to thank for that. Both allowed us to develop a secular way of life in which religion was seperate from state. This lead ultimately to the reformation. This separation in Isalm cannot and never will be endorsed by scripture. Islamic states must and will always be ruled to some extent by the edicts of Sharia.
It is why the Arab world and much of the Islamic world is often mentioned as a Democracy free zone.
3) All the points you made about the Bible are valid but again the Western world by in large does not practice this. Every example I gave you I can find specific instance of it being impelemented or said in the Islamic world. Please provide examples in Christian scripture in which modern man is employing it to persecute and commite violence!! Your usually very good at making your point and actually changing mine. However, this time you have not and have largely ignored the points I made about Islamic law such as the Dhimmi.
The more I read your responses I get the feeling you believe the majority of the ills in the Islamic world(specifically Israel) are due to West and in particular the US. Is this true? If so I would agree on some points but encourage you to look beyond what your perception says. And, realize my arguement is not connected to a cause and effect scenario but from a doctrinal one showing how the laws of Islam are implemented today. Some western actions do have a profound effect on the issues but as I mentioned these issues existed long before. Every point I made has numerous historical accounts to back this up as well. Yes other religion had their barbaric times but all, unlike Islam, went through somewhat of a humanistic reformation. The only religion that clings to its past draconian laws in Islam and them only. Why? Islam is the only religion today that seem to spout hate and segregation with such force? Why? The why is in their scripture and how it is taught today. You just don’t find any other religion having these problems and that fact is part of the answer to the issues within Islam.
Thx
Bill
Yes, as administrator I have a text editor I can use. However, I think if you use tags, like:
for italics, that will work.
Bill, I don’t know what to say to that. It’s basically like saying it’s okay to take a passage out of context and apply whatever other meaning you want to it, which is just ridiculous. Verses in the Quran have a context, Bill. Like the verse you quoted in an attempt to portray the Quran as saying aggressive (offensive) warfare is okay. In fact, the Quran says just the opposite and the verse you quoted — in context — applies to those who had made a treaty with Muhammed and his followers, then broke it and attacked them.
I think if you told a Christian that their scriptures have been “thrown to the trash bin”, they would have something else to say about it. Jesus certainly never threw any scripture to the trash bin. In fact, he himself said just the opposite. Also, you’ll notice the verses I quoted came from the New Testament, so this assertion just doesn’t hold any water, Bill. And the fact remains one could just as easily quote from the Bible and make a similar case against Christianity as you do against Islam.
I already have, Bill. Zionists, both Jew and Christian, cite God promising the land to Abraham as justification for Israeli theft and occupation. As for Israeli violence, this is also considered quite acceptable to the Christian Right. After all, God instructed the Israelites to smite the Canaanites. In fact, in the book of Joshua, the Israelites are instructed to smite every man, woman, and child — to commit genocide. And Christian Zionists today unconditionally support Israeli crimes against the Palestinians based on such scriptures as those.
George W. Bush said he was a Christian. He said God gave him a mission, to invade Iraq. He claimed it was a fight of “good” against “evil”, and the Christian Right rallied behind him. When I was vocally opposing the invasion of Iraq, Bill, numerous Christians wrote me quoting scriptures such as Romans 13 in an attempt to justify the coming war — using scripture , Bill, to say the coming war on Iraq was justified.
I don’t know how to measure the ills, Bill, or to tell you what percentage of them the U.S. is responsible for. It’s enough to observe the fact that the West and in particular the U.S. is responsible for a great many ills in the Islamic world. I, for one, believe in the Gospel principle of non-hypocrisy — the principle of universality — and am more interested in the actions of my own government than those of others. I’m more interested in criticizing those actions and those policies which I, as an American, am responsible for and have some power to influence and change. This is all elementary as a moral principle.
To get back to the point of the article, how can we in the West preach tolerance and equality to the Muslim world when we don’t practice it ourselves? How can we preach peace and love and charity when we bomb, invade, and occupy Muslim lands? How can we preach freedom and democracy when we empower tyrannical and oppressive regimes? It’s pure hypocrisy, Bill. Again, the plank in our own eye — as an elementary moral principle — should be our own focus.
Then you agree with the point of the article. So why trash an article that makes a point you agree with? Because it was written by an Arab? So if I had written that article, it would have been fine, but because a Palestinian wrote it, it’s worthy of trashing?
I’m not ignoring anything. As an elementary moral principle, I am simply more concerned about our hypocrisy than the hypocrisy of others. I’m more concerned about our persecution and intolerance than the persecution and intolerance of others. That’s elementary, Bill. Remove the plank from your own eye.
The same could be said about Christianity. Is that because Christianity itself is the problem? Or is the problem with how people wrongfully commit deeds in its name? And, actually, the fact is that while Europe suffered under religious persecution and the collapse of civilization during the dark ages, the Muslim world was a beacon of enlightenment, education, and religious freedom. Compare Jerusalem under Christian occupation to Jerusalem under Muslim rule, for example.
Bill, persecution doesn’t exist in Saudi Arabia because that is prescribed by Islam. By this measure, since China, Burma, and Vietnam rank high on the list, Buddhism is therefore also a despicable religion. Not as bad as Islam, but still responsible for religious persecution. India ranks very high on their chart, so I guess we can trash Hinduism, too, while we’re at it, eh? And maybe Russia is on the list because they are all really godless commies, or something?
Another means by which to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument is to point out how the people of those Muslim countries are victims of the government attributed with the persecution and oppression by this report. If your theory was correct (that this was because they are Muslims), this persecution should have the support of the people. So why, then, does Saudi Arabia need arms from the U.S. for “internal security” (that is, to control their own population and prevent their overthrow from power at the hands of their own people)?
You are arguing restrictions in Muslim countries are because of Islam. But you ignore your own report, which notes that there are many other and in most cases obviously much more causative factors: “historical, demographic, cultural, religious, economic and political”. Picking “religious” out of the factors and ignoring the others leads to a rather unpersuasive argument, Bill.
Bill, Samuel Huntington’s notion of a “clash of civilizations” is utter nonsense. There’s not much more to be said about that.