Everyday, I come across a new news article, TV show or even a comment left here or there that accuses Muslims of being followers of a religion which encourage violence, killing and intolerance. Most of the time I don't blame the writers of these articles because it shows how ignorant they are about Islam. It evens makes me more worried when I hear that Qur'an sales were amazingly breaking records in this country or that, following sad events like 9/11 or 7/7. The reason is that very few (if hardly any) know how the Quran is organized and what is the difference between a Mekka verse and a Madenah verse, and when/why the verse came, the Qur'anic literalism, Stylistic attributes, etc… The problem is reading the Qur'an from cover to cover without the proper direction of what is when and why then and what is it now, leads to misunderstanding of the religion and the revelation in whole.
If I have to blame any, it's our Islam nation and lack of proper education of their culture and religion to the rest of the world.
However, this is not an excuse to extract a passage from any holy book and build on it a vision, mission and then form a propaganda which use the "freedom of speech" as a cover.
Having said that, please allow me to take some snapshots on other religions – Christianity and Judaism-, and see how they look at other religions and ethnicities. Then let�s compare that with present and see where all this leads to. Specially that all the present propaganda�s are suggesting that it is only Islam a religion of violence.
However, I have no intention here in calling Christianity and Judaism the same as they call Islam. I believe that intentional and unintentional interpretations of any word – not only holy books – can lead to disasters. This will be just an eye opener for those who seek understanding, and may as will raise the question; "then why Islam? And why we are attacking Muslims now?"
Today, the world believes that the very existence of Muslims is a threat to human beings. It is impossible that non-Muslims can tolerate or coexist with Muslims; in fact, for non-Muslims survival we are forced to fight Muslims and destroy them.
Here is a starting point:
The Danish government relies for its Parliamentary majority on the support of the far-right Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People�s Party), whose representatives have made it quite clear that when they speak about �cultural restoration� and �Danish values� [link], they mean Christian values. Speaking in Parliament, where they enjoy immunity from prosecution for inciting racial hatred, DPP members Louise Frevert, Jesper Langballe and Soren Krarup have referred to Denmark�s Muslim population as �a cancer on Danish society� and Islam as �a plague over Europe�.
Now, speaking about a minority group as a cancer or a plague is not a neutral or benign thing to do. I wonder how they share humanity or anything else with viruses or bacilli. If you think that equating the Muslim minority with a plague or cancer is just hyperbole that doesn't really amount to anything, then maybe you should reacquaint yourself with what happened just two generations ago when rightist �Christian� politicians demonized a religious minority as a �plague� on Christian Europe, and see how religious hyperbole prepared the ground for real-life genocide.
To save you the time and hassle of search, here are examples of the Jewish �plague� on Christian Europe:
- How urgent it is at present and how much it is upsetting the major nations becomes evident from the collective outcry against the invasion of the Israelites into every sector of public and social life; from the associations having formed in France, Austria, Germany, England, Russia, Romania, and elsewhere in order to stop it; from the outcries which are beginning to make themselves heard within the parliaments; finally, from the great number of newspapers, books, and pamphlets continuously appearing in order to point out the necessity of stopping and combating the spread of this plague, and stressing its most pernicious consequences.
�So, in Germany, Austria and France, there is a school of thought which advances a remedy for liberation from the Jewish plague, that, per se, would be the most radical of all, but that wouldn't conform to the Christian spirit and whose realization would be impossible at present. (La Civilt� Cattolica, Series XIV, Vol. VII, Fascicule 961, 23 October 1890)
- Thanks to the development of our modern means of communication, the Jewish question ought to be permitted to become a world question in the course of the twentieth century. As such, it should be solved in common with other nations and result finally in full separation, and if– self-defense demands– in final annihilation of the Jewish race. The "true" peace conference will be the one in which the peoples of the globe occupy themselves with the position of the Hebrews. Until then, however, it will be the affair of every individual nation to defend itself against the Jewish plague as best it can. — (Hamburg Resolutions of the German Social Reform Party, 1899).
- In Munich the violent, blatant V�lkischer Beobachter, organ of Jew-baiting Adolf Hitler, reminded its readers that famed Jewish Biographer Emil Ludwig long ago quit Germany for Switzerland, clarioned: �We advise other Jews to leave Germany while they have the opportunity. . . . We are determined to free Germany of the Jewish plague!� (TIME Magazine, 30 May 1932).
- Many people are quite smug because the Jewish question in Germany is solved. The Jew is barred from civil life and politics. German blood is protected by the Nurnberg laws� Such persons are taking only a superficial view of the Jewish question. The German people will not be free of danger from the Jewish plague until the Jewish question is liquidated in its entirety. The danger of the plague infecting the German people will continue to exist as long as there is a seat of this pestilence anywhere in the world. (Julius Streicher, writing in Fraenkische Tageszeitung on 11 August 1938)
- Just as the tapeworm requires a radical cure, so, too, does the Jew. World history proves that, over the millennia, Gentile peoples have resisted Jewish parasites. Millions of Jewish crooks where chased away by exploited peoples. Hundreds of thousands of those miserable criminals were hung on the gallows or burned alive. This is how these peoples hoped finally to free themselves from the Jewish tapeworm. But they were wrong! The Jews came back in even larger numbers. Just as a person can be cured of a tapeworm only when it is completely destroyed, so the peoples can be freed of the Jewish plague only when they make full work of it. It is not enough to render harmless only a part of Jewry, since the Jewish tapeworm always grows back! Then it is more dangerous than before! All the work was in vain!
Tapeworms and the Jew are parasites of the worst kind. If we want to free ourselves of them, if we want to be healthy and strong again, there is only one cure: their extermination. – Excerpt from "The Tapeworm", from a childrens� storybook Der Pudelmopsdackelpinscher (The Mongrel Dog) by Ernst Hiemer, 1940. - The Jews have disappeared from Europe and the Jewish 'Reservoir of the East' from which the Jewish plague has for centuries beset the people of Europe, has ceased to exist. (Der Sturmer, 7 May 1942).
Wasn't that all by Christians? Hate to Jews? How about Christians killing Christians?
Catholics Killing Protestants:
In France, the largest Protestant group was known as the Huguenots. They were mercilessly persecuted, and King Henry created a heresy court known infamously as The Burning Chamber because that was the standard punishment for heretics. On the night of August 24, 1572 – known as St. Bartholomew's Day – Catholic soldiers swept through Huguenot neighborhoods of Paris in a foreshadowing of what would happen to the Jews under Nazi rule.
Thousands were slaughtered in their homes and other massacres timed for the same night occurred in cities across France. In response to this, Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics."
Pope Pius sent Catholic troops into France to aid in the repression efforts, ordering the army commander to kill all prisoners. Pius, unsurprisingly, was later canonized as a saint. In the Catholic Church, sainthood is an honor which goes not to the nicest person or to someone who has aided humanity, but to those Catholics who have done great deeds to advance the cause of Catholicism. As a result of such treatment, Huguenots fled France in large numbers. One group reached what would later become Florida – and when they were discovered by a Spanish expedition, all were killed.
In Flanders, all heretical Protestants were ordered executed and thousands were burned at the stake. But queen Mary was merciful to Protestants who recanted – instead of burning, the men would be killed by a sword and women buried alive. Philip II, Spanish king and also ruler of Holland and Belgium, was positively obsessed with eliminating Protestantism and ordered that all prisoners be killed so that there would be no chance that they might escape through neglect or mistakes. The Duke of Alva was sent in and began what became known as the "Spanish Fury" in which thousands of Antwerp Protestants were killed and almost all "heretics" in Haarlem were massacred.
In the name of God and Christianity!
Protestants Killing Catholics:
Of course, Protestants should not be imagined as innocents in all of this. Attempting to abandon several centuries of developed church tradition, Protestant theology focused instead upon stricter adherence to scriptures. As an example, the harsher laws of the Old Testament developed greater prominence in Protestant lands than they did in Catholic lands. Protestant leaders also embraced some of the nastier doctrines of a few Catholic theologians, like Augustine's ideas about free will and predestination. Luther wrote in 1518: "Free will after the Fall is nothing but a word. Even doing what in him lies, man sins mortally."
In Switzerland, John Calvin created a vicious theocracy in which morality police were employed to control people's behavior. Citizens were harshly punished for a wide variety of moral infractions, including dancing, drinking, and generally being entertained. Theological dissidents were summarily executed, like Michael Servetus who was burned for doubting the Trinity. It isn't surprising that some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists
During the many Huguenot wars ravaging France, Huguenot soldiers hunted priests like animals and one captain is reported to have worn a necklace of priests' ears. In England, after King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, he went after both Catholics and Protestants. Catholic loyalists like Sir Thomas More were quickly executed, but Lutherans who doubted retained doctrines like transubstantiation were also not spared. When his daughter Mary reached the throne in 1553 she became known as "Bloody Mary" because she attempted to reinstitute Catholicism through violence – but she only managed to make the country even more Protestant.
Unsurprisingly, not all Protestants were created equal – some wretched groups were uniformly hated by all parties. One example of this is the Anabaptists, who were martyred for their faith in huge numbers. Anabaptists briefly took the German city of Munster, but Catholic armies regained control, torturing to death Anabaptist leaders with red-hot pincers. Their bodies were hung in cages from a church steeple where they remained for many years as a visible reminder of what happens to those who dare to oppose church authority.
Again… In the name of God and Christianity!
Once again, there is quite a lot more to cover on the topic of religious violence, but I think that we've seen even more now which should lead reasonable people to conclude that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, doesn't do a very good job at all in preventing human violence. At a minimum, it does a wonderful job at serving as a justification for violence. In many cases, however, religious beliefs and attitudes appear to form the basis for violent acts or movements. In these instances, the violence would not have occurred if it had not been for religion.
[link: Christianity and Violence: Reformation]
And to close the chapter of Christianity and violence, someone may ask; Does Christianity endorse killing nonbelievers? I'll tell him; here is something that they will use against you:
Luke 19:27 – "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me."
????: 19: 27
??????? ??????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????????????? ?????????
Some will tell you that this "command" from Jesus is actually part of a parable, rather than a direct command. The parable is apparently meant to illustrate what will occur when God judges the world. Skeptics will object further that even if the parable isn't teaching that Christians should kill unbelievers, it's teaching that God will ruthlessly destroy anyone who disagrees with him.
Anyway, hopefully, you've found something in the above that really offends or angers you. Well, now you're feeling a little bit of what many Muslims feel at the sight of "religion on intolerance" labels.
Secondly; speaking of Judaism (again, with all my respect to Jews and Christians and their religion). The Talmud (from wikipedia):
is a record of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories, which Jewish tradition considers authoritative. It is a fundamental source of legislation, customs, case histories and moral exhortations. It is the basis for all later codes of Jewish law, and much of Rabbinic literature.
Now, isn't it written in the Talmud: "Only the Jews are human beings. Non-Jews cannot be called human beings, they are like animals". Because of this, we consider non-Jews to be animals, and call them "Goy"?
And doesn't Talmud advocate for Genocide and hate:
- Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed").
- This passage is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).
- This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "…in the various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].
- Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).
- On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").
- University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
- Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).
- Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death, for it is written, And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian. R. Hanina also said: He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, one who smiteth23 man [i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.
- Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
- Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
What about Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human:
- Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
- Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
- Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books:
- Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
- Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.
- Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.
Jewish Law Requires Christians be Executed:
- "The Torah maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the World to Come. But not all religious Gentiles earn eternal life by virtue of observing their religion…And while the Christians do generally accept the Hebrew Bible as truly from God, many of them (those who accept the so-called divinity of Jesus) are idolaters according to the Torah, punishable by death, and certainly will not enjoy the World to Come."
–Israeli Mechon-Mamre website, June 26, 2000; 12 Hayyim Vital St., Jerusalem, Occupied Palestine. ("Mechon Mamre is a small group of Torah scholars in Israel…").
- Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
Here is an online copy of the Talmud.
Does this offend you? Are Christianity and Judaism "religions of peace"? Some will say yes, other will say no (I'll respect the yes, you will know why later). Now, put yourself in place of Muslims, how does it feel? How does it feel when someone advocates that a nation or a religion is intolerant because some commit crimes under the name of that religion? Being Islam or Christianity, or Judaism? How does it feel when neither you nor I know enough about the other religions other than what someone claims, or a TV show propose, or a corrupted politician advocate? Do I claim that the above is all what Christianity and Judaism are? No, of course not. But this is what anti-Christianity or anti-Jews will use in their propaganda to paint them as a "religion of violence and intolerance". Similarly, warmongers will use out-of-context passage from Qur'an (or like the above one from The Bible) or a speech by a criminals and call it Islamist-Fundamentalist, and generalize that all Muslims are terrorists and should be killed. (Note that those anti-Muslim are advocating for the same thing they are fighting against, which is killing!). How do you feel when I call Christianity of Judaism, a religion of violence, or a religion of intolerance? How do you feel when someone say the "Christian Terrorism" or "Judaism Terrorism", or even "Zionist Terrorism"? Don't you feel offended and that generalization is wrong?
Then, how do you expect a Muslim to accept what you don't accept for yourself?
There is no superiority in this world. We all are humans, and we all commit sins. But we all should and must tolerate humanity. �If I were asked to give what I consider the single most useful bit of advice for all humanity it would be this: Expect trouble as an inevitable part of life and when it comes, hold you head high, look it squarely in eye and say, 'I will be bigger than you. You cannot defeat me.'� — Ann Lander
We all boil at different degrees, but if each man or woman could understand that every other human life is as full of sorrows, or joys, or base temptations, of heartaches and of remorse as his own . . . how much kinder, how much gentler life would be.
{ 51 } Comments
The biggest concern that I had about the rioting over the cartoons was that most rioters were younger people with a few "elders" amongst the crowd. Set up, maybe. They were still rioting about the cartoons after the sacred Mosque in Iraq was destroyed. They were still rioting about the cartoons after several Mosque's were destroyed in Iraq. They were still rioting about the cartoons after over 100 people were killed in Iraq by bombs.
If the Danes keep printing new cartoons every week it will only take just over a year for Iraq to destroy itself.
Heck, if the Danes printed new cartoons every week about Mohammed it would take only 5-6 years and Islam would kill itself off.
Do you see what I am saying? The west blows stories up. The radicals blow Muslims up (and others). Can't we stop this vicious circle. I don't want to see any more people die. I don't want to see anyone die except by natural causes (old age).
Concerned,
Again, I'm going to try to make it REAL SIMPLE.
Laws for civility are not what I ask.
I only wish for people not to insult each other
If someone says you offended them, be humble and apologize.
And for SURE, never intentionally insult someone.
Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you.
A civil society seeks to protect all it's citizens.
Make no laws, be personally and civically responsibe to do
no harm.
Model your civil behavior on the best of ideals.
And if all else fails, make SPIDER COOKIES!
(sorry , but sometimes my sarcasm gets the best of me, but
I really really mean no harm) PEACE!
Concerned,
One more thing.
A kind society needs no laws to be kind.
Teach kindness by example.
Simple minded? maybe. Chocolate chips anyone?
I've been thinking long and hard how to respond to this post. I'm very well-acquainted with how bloody and contrary-to-Christ's teachings Christians have been in a position of power. But comparing both histories, I'm not sure it is a neck-and-neck equality of bloodshed.
Are you sure it is the watching West that needs detailed Quranic instruction or the Muslims who are killing and threatening people all over the world? Although I have been greatly encouraged by yours and other Muslim's ideas, I am even more greatly concerned that it will be you AND me that will be swallowed by a wave of uncontrolled violence by untaught followers.
I'm a little familiar with the difference between the Mekka and Medina Quran differences…that the latter writings transcend the former. Yet as a whole, isn't it the Mekka writings that are the most violent and the Medina writings that were the peaceful ones?
One thing I am convinced of, it is not religion that fuels violence, it is the inborn greed in the heart of mankind. No outward show of religion has tamed it for long, only the individual choosing inner transformation .
Thank you :) …you have saved me all the research !!!brilliant I am even going to print it out and give it to some friends !
Robin, what a life story! I should have noted I was talking to Haitham, but I am glad to hear this amazing thing. I'm also an American but I live in Jordan. All my friends and most of my acquaintances who are Muslims fall under the wonderful, warm, delightful catagory. I am also disbelieved by many American friends about some of the great people I know who happen to be Muslims.
It is not people like this I am concerned about; well, I am actually, as their peaceful definition of Islam is being drowned out by the hate and bloodshed perpetrated by militants. Those who call people me kafr and people like my friends bad Muslims.
My point is that I don't think it is the West that is in the most dire need of a lesson in Islamics, it is the Muslims who are killing people on three continents in the name of their faith.
Christian history is bad but the incidents listed are 500 years old (although I add the Rwanda genocide to the list of modern atrocities). There just isn't the same level of "Christian terrorism" going on. And even if Islam had a lily-white, bloodshed free past 1,460 years, it is today that people are concerned about.
Average Joe Westerner is listening to the actions of violence that speak louder than words of peace. He'll need to hear over and over again that it is not ok to kill the kafir.
Robin: Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your participation in this discussion and your unique insights into the issues.
Haitham: Thanks for hosting this little corner of the Internet.
Kinzi wrote:
You also have a pretty unique perspective and I look forward to hearing more about it. It is very important for Muslims and Islam to respond to the violence that is being done in their name. Perhaps it is a difficult decision to make for some but there is a penalty for not choosing that I think is even worse.
Kinzi,
I think I've found a kindred spirit. Halleleiua. I am totally ignorant of what this word "kafr" is. Could you tell me 'cause I see it pop up all over the place and would like to know exactly what is being said.
I think we are seeing an age where all the three great religions "of the book" need some real lessons in humanity. This alarms me to the core. I am not at all trying to suggest that our own "Western Christianity" is there yet, but I see rumblings, witnessed in much of the diatrab here and other places that scare me. When I lived in Saudi Arabia (1975-1980) this was exactly when I saw the rumblings starting there. Yes, indeed, they had been around in Egypt for many years (Islamic Brotherhood), but it was starting to spread. It was I think after the Iranian Revolution that extreme Islam gained the momentum which brought us to where we are today. I personally saw the change in Saudi when my sister-in-laws who had before never covered their faces began doing so because the mutawa had gained strenght vis-a-vis their neighbors in Iran.
This shift in the Islam that I was exposed to directly 30 years ago did not happen overnight. It grew, and grew, becoming a cancer. And I'm just not sure if there IS a chemotherapy out there to beat it. You know, and I know, and others like us know how dangerous this is. We also know how much more dangerous it is for moderate Moslems who are being highjacked by their black-sheep brothers. You are absolutely 100% correct in the need for these nutcases to be deprogramed. I just don't know how that's going to happen because it has grown exponentially and is now the most dire threat that faces the entire world.
But you know, I know, and others know that it is important to keep the bridges open for dialog amongst the moderates on both sides. Quite frankly, I've become sort of obsessed with this. If you read Haitham's blog "should we" you will get a very good sense of his desire to keep this dialog going. He is even willing to stay the course, put up with the rage targetted at him.
Why? Because of his children. This should be the primary reason for all of us to want peace. Kimzi, NOBODY is going to shut me up and I hope NOBODY shuts you up either. There are so many others like us out there (note Kimmy on various sites) who are seeking an understanding, NOT condoning violence, and who want to embrace others for our children's sakes.
I say to you, keep up the good work, talk to your Moslem friends, and voice your concerns. We all need to pull this cancer out with snub-nosed pliers and destroy it. Keep your friends, make new ones, and continue to testify to your experience. Be patient, it is NOT easy, but even if you plant a seed in one single person's mind that leads to this goal it is all worth it. Ma'Salama
Haitham,
Well written article. As always you make me think a nd you manage to push some buttons.
I think that if one was to go back far enough in any race, culture, country or religion one would find some kind of atrocities commited. This once again brings me to the point, why dwell in the past? This is like the African Americans demanding that I pay reparations for something that happened before I was born. In thier case, I'm guilty of being white. In this current matter, I'm guilty for being born in a western country.
As far as I am concerned, you can find good and bad in all religions and their leadership which is part of the reason why I don't prescribe to any of them. Hell, the bible has no problem with slavery.
Perhaps that's part of the reason why I don't understand why people are so offended. I have no god for you to offend. Life is pretty rosey through the eyes of an athiest.
I have noticed something that puzzles me, both on this blog and in the real world, so I hope you can help me out.
Several times when I have been discussing with Muslims we have covered subjects like the weather, society around us, and world issues with no problems, but even if we have been sitting and talking well for a couple of hours, as soon as the topic goes in the direction of "why don't moderate Muslims actively try to prevent extremism among themselves?" then they close up like a clam.
The weird thing is that even though we have 'solved the world problems' by exchanging both positive and negative views on all other issues and have gone through the whole range of being serious, 'pseudo-intellectual', ironic, sarcastic etc. then 'the fun stops' if Muslim extremists are mentioned.
Is it just me who is imagining that Muslims 'run and hide' if they are being asked why nobody is giving resistance to those who are abusing Islam or is there some secret protection mechanism built into Islam that prevents Muslims from questioning other Muslims, even if those other Muslims are clearly perverting Islam for their own gain?
If this taboo is not a product of my imagination, then isn't it double standards when Muslims demand that we, in the West, deal with our intolerants and racists while they, the Muslim world, do nothing to deal with their own intolerants and racists?!?
I hope my question did not hit the 'taboo wall' and that you can enlighten me on this matter :)
I'll try my best.
1. Maybe you are asking the wrong question:
First, moderate Muslims don't have extremism amongst them. So the question is Ironic. Maybe you mean the extremism among their societies? I'll assume that.
In this case maybe you should know that the prisons in the Muslim world is full with them. In fact there are more than one would imagine, and more than any civil or human rights organization knows about. This is not new, it's been like this for ages, and you can google a bit and you will find plenty of reports about jailed/executed etc… through out the history of the non-Democratic systems that rule this part of the world. Far west from Morocco to far east in Pakistan.
Islamic movements and organization were always banned and their members does not have any privileges, that's why it was (and still is) a big fuss in Egypt when members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood won some seats in the new parliament.
2. Maybe you are asking the wrong people
Moderate Muslims have no active civil organizations. Even existing organizations are not free enough to exercise their rights under the repression of the non-democratic regimes.
Therefore, you will find these moderates are normally more active when they are away from the threat of their regimes, which happens to be outside their countries. Having said that, the distance between the activism and the threats they are advocating against makes it slow and difficult to reach it's goals.
Add to that the perception and how the political agendas of the host countries try to use these "political refuges" to spread the untrusted agenda of the West in the "refugee" country of origin. e.g. All the existing Iraqi leaders who once lived in the Diaspora and now trying to implement their agenda.
It is not. You are comparing apple with an orange.
Islam and the West are not equal world. The first is suppose to be ethnic based (Islam), and the second is not. The second is suppose to be based on human vales which calls for equality and tolerance.
Islam world is not democratic, while the West is suppose to be democratic. While moderates in the Islamic world are trying to change things in their part of the world with all threats that they live under from regimes which does not respect anything but their own interest (might not do anything with Islam), they are also asking the West not to totalitarianism (Islamisim), generalization and magnify flaws of nations who has been living under internal and external repression, war and internal and external threats, for decades.
In short, moderate Muslims are trying to says: "Give us a break. We are trying to make changes, but your attacks are not helping us because our part of the world is very emotional when it comes to religious values and is not ready yet to look at things the way you do. Simply they will turn from revolution for good change to defensive position cause they will feel that they are left in the middle of nowhere."
Last but not least, when you compare Islam to Nazism, you don't expect a nice reply, do you?!
Mr. Haitham,
Thank you for a well researched piece. And your tolerance is indeed amazing…frankly I do not have much patience (my weakness) with those who insist on flogging a dead horse! It's so ad nauseum!If they have pre-conceived and biased view…can there ever be a meaningful dialogue?
Haitham,
One more thing. When I was there, my younger brother-in-law started hanging out with some pretty scarey people who were involved with the Islamic Brotherhood. He would literally beat his drum and tell his younger sister not to leave the house for a shawarma in the souk. It was our FAMILY who got this under control and deprogrammed him because we did not want him to end up in one of the prisons you mentioned above.
Blackfeline,
That's precisely what some of us are trying so hard to do. Stay with us.
Thomas,
Apology accepted and you are welcome. You are lucky that no one saw your Islam/Nazism comparison except me ;-)
Deb,
All you have to do is sign in an start, that's what I did.
It's real simple and really fulfilling.
Haitham,
I did not have any form of humor in mind with my question. Of course, I am not assuming that all of you have a neighbor who is fiddling with home made rockets and suicide bombs in his living room. What I am talking about are words of extremism and making it clear to people who talk 'crazy talk' that this kind of talk is not appreciated.
I know it is far from easy to say "I really do not share your view on Gypsies. If you treat them with the same respect as you treat me with, then you will realize that they are people like you and me." to a friend or a colleague, but I think we all have the responsibility to gather up enough courage to tell somebody that we disagree with their intolerant comments. After I did this the first few times I realized that my fear of loosing a friend or the respect of a colleague was unfounded – actually many people I say this to seem to gain more respect for me.
If we do not speak up against intolerance when we can, then it will not take long before the intolerant person thinks that his way of thinking is politically correct and then his intolerant ideas will continue to grow and become racistic ideas. This is why I say that silence is consent, because if one ignores this kind of problem, then it will only get worse and worse.
So I am not asking you to dress up in your battle gear and start your own war on terrorism, what I am asking all of you to do is to sabotage the efforts of the extremists by closing for or reducing their life-blood, which are new recruits who think that intolerance/racism/terrorism is politically correct and justifiable (deprogramming as Robin mentioned).
If the extremist organizations get one or two new recruits for every one member they lose, then it will always be a growing problem, but if these organizations only manage to get one new recruit for every two or three members they lose, then it will be a diminishing problem. I don't thing there is a plug'n'play solution to racism, so we will have to take one step at the time.
Now you bring up the Muslim Brotherhood. There are reports (which will be thoroughly investigated by the Danish Intelligence Services) that the Danish Imam who instigated the riots against Denmark in the Middle East, Imam Ahmed abdel Rahman Abu Laban, and who has had political asylum in Denmark since 1993, was kicked out of Egypt because of links to the Muslim Brotherhood. It has also come out that he may have had links with Yusuf al Qaradawi (as far as I know, one of the heads of MB) and leaders of Gamaa Islamiya in Egypt for years. He is also being said to have had close connections to Said Mansour, a Moroccan currently in custody of the Danish Police and awaiting trial for running a publishing house that printed and distributed 'Al Murabitoun' and other jihadi material.
In Denmark, we are fed up with these two-faced Islamic preachers who are talking peace and understanding in Danish to Danish media while preaching hatred in Arabic in their prayer rooms. As a known politician would say it: "You can fool me once, but fool me twice … uhm ehh … shame on you!"
I guess the best option is if Abu Laban (laban actually means hoodlum in Danish) will be tried and (if found guilty) sentenced to life imprisonment in Denmark for treason and fifth column enterprise instead of expelling him to where he came from so you will have to deal with his crazy shit in Palestine instead.
Banning an organization will never be able to shut it down as long as there are people listening to its message. So this comes back to my point above about sabotaging extremist organizations and deprogramming their followers.
In this light, do you understand why I raised the question about double standards?
I agree that it is not all Muslims who are terrorists, but can we also agree that it is not all Western countries and Western populations who have 'evil intent' and that have 'breaking the Muslim' as their only purpose in life? I may misread your words, but is seems like you have the idea that most political refugees turn into the tools of evil Western regimes.
You said: "In short, moderate Muslims are trying to say: “Give us a break. We are trying to make changes, but your attacks are not helping us because our part of the world is very emotional when it comes to religious values and is not ready yet to look at things the way you do."
I accept that fully, and this is where it is getting very interesting, because if you look back at some of my posts you will notice that, speaking for moderate Danes, I have been asking the same thing from you.
Before the cartoon incident we had the Danish extreme right well contained, but this whole campaign against Denmark allowed them to break lose and now 'ugly Danes' seem to be crawling out from under their rocks all over the place. They are still a minority, so I am not so worried about getting them back in the place where they belong. What is worrying me is the growing support of the Danish People's Party, because their support is not growing because intolerance in general is growing, but because many Danes are growing increasingly scared of Islamic extremism. It is an evil spiral that has started, but we have not lost the game yet. However, the more riots and the more excitement over the whole mess the harder it will get to deescalate the situation.
What makes the whole thing so sad is that the more the Middle East accuses Denmark of being intolerant the more intolerant Denmark will get and the other way around. So the more Muslims try to spread their protests, the more the 'intolerance' they think they are protesting over will grow.
Actually, what I find a bit offensive is that you and many other Muslims put more weight on the words of Danish Muslim extremists than on the words of me and the other infidel Danes who have been trying to explain the situation. If you put yourself in my place, wouldn't you think it would come across as something very close to racism?
I know you like the analogy of your house when you talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict, so let me use that in connection with the Danish Imams. If you invite me into your home as a guest and I start moving around all your furniture, tell you how lousy taste you have in colors and decoration, and I spit in the face of your daughter and call her a whore just because I don't like the way she looks would you object or would you thank me? As you say, Muslims are very emotional, so I don't think 'thank you' is the answer. Would you or any other Muslim restraint yourself and draw a few caricatures or would it be a stronger reaction?
I cannot tell you how you will get the democracy you deserve, but I can tell you how you will not get it. You will not get it by feeling offended and getting angry over something somebody in a country far far away is doing regardless of whether it is somebody drawing cartoons or somebody pretending to be a righteous good natured president. You may think it sucks, but you are not doing yourself a favor by trying to fight 'externalities' because that is exactly what the ones who do not want you to get a democracy will want you to do. Al-Qaida wants you to protest the West, because the more excited you and other Muslims get, the easier it will be to whisper their fundamentalist nonsense to the 'weakest' in your group. The dictators wants you to protest the West, because the more steam you and your other countrymen let out the less steam will be directed onto the dictatorship.
If you look in a thesaurus, then you will see that emotional and irrational is in the same group, and if you want democracy, then focused strategic thinking is what you need and not irrational actions. It will take a very long time and you are fighting an uphil battle, therefore you cannot afford any distractions, because if you do get distracted by cartoons or something else, then you are prolonging your ordeal.
To answer you beforehand, yes I know about dictatorships. I am a Danish immigrant in Hungary, because this is where I happened to meet my wife. I came here after the system change so I have not felt dictatorship on my own body, but I am not ignorant of how things worked during the latest occupation that ended just 16 years ago and I do know Hungarian history. I think you will find very few countries that have had more occupations and failed revolutions than Hungary, which has been the 'central station' of Europe. The Romans held Hungary/Pannonia before it got its state form. After it became a state the Ottomans (1526-1686/1699), the Austrians (1686-1867), the Germans (1944-1945), and the Russians (1945-1989) have ruled the country against the free will of the Hungarians. On my wife's father's side, her grandmother survived the Dachau concentration camp, her grandfather was shot in the head and thrown into the Danube river while on her mother's side her grandfather was sent to an American POW camp because he worked as a lawyer for the state.
I could write page up and page down about what I know about occupation and oppression in Hungary, but let me keep it at giving you two jokes from back when the Communists were ruling Hungary with a hard hand:
A conversation between two prisoners:
- How many years did you get?
+ Ten years!
- Ten years? What did you do?
+ Nothing!
- Nothing? That can't be, for nothing you normally get five years!
A judge is sitting and laughing loudly in the court house cafeteria. Another judge asks him:
- What are you laughing at?
+ I just had a case with a man who told a system-critical joke.
- Please tell me the joke.
+ I can't tell it to you. I just taxed it to 10 years in jail.
These kind of jokes were one of the ways for Hungarians to cope with the occupation. I don't know if that makes sense to you.
Robin,
To be honest, I am actually more worried about fundamentalism in the USA than in the Middle East. Before the cartoon debacle I would spend a majority of my 'blogging time' on US based discussion forums to influence the fascistic minority that is ruling your country. As I see it, the imperialistic ambition of your government is the far bigger obstacle to a peaceful world. The domestic issues of the US is none of my business, but when your foreign policies influences me, directly or indirectly, then it is my business.
Too many of your countrymen have absolutely no clue about the world outside the US and they are just chanting along with your government's crusade to spread 'freedom and democracy'. I am very sorry, but there are a lot of Americans who need a lesson in democracy, because lobby and contribution driven 'democracy' and 'US interests' is not what the world needs.
When people take democracy for granted and start thinking that there is nothing between for and against, then they have failed the principles of democracy which is based on compromises that satisfy the needs of both those in power and those in opposition.
When people gets into the 'either you are with us or you are against us' mentality, then the logical conclusion of patriotism (the USA is the greatest) that everybody else are very unfortunate people (they lack the greatness of the USA) and therefore they need help (force feeding US style 'democracy' to the world). When it gets one more step perverted, then people starts ignoring other people's rights and then the logical conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with puppet dictatorships (the better dictatorship syndrome).
It is not everybody in the US who are mono-thinkers, but there are enough of them to make the US a much bigger threat to the world than Osama bin Laden.
Haitham,
I hope my long reply to you does not come across as condescending, but when I get excited I tend to get a bit chaotic. The more I was trying to ensure that you would understand my points the more I started babbling. I hope you can make some sens out of it :)
Thomas, a Dane
It all makes sense and I don't think that we disagree. I share with you all the major points you mentioned.
Peace!
Thomas, a Dane,
PLEEEEEEEZE do not count me as one of them. But you are making a good point about generalizing when you talk about the US.
I'm going to say something totally counterproductive to what should be an American response. I AGREE WITH YOU. I actually live in what I consider one of the most ignorant countries on Earth. I'm not talking education, although that ain't(joking) so great either, I'm talking ignorant about anything beyond what pablum this administration is feeding us. Heck, most people here can't think outside their own neighborhood, let alone across an ocean. (If any Americans who are not in this category are reading, I am NOT referring to you. If any of you are reading who do fit this defintion, try a little traveling or pick up a newspaper from another country and learn something new).
Thomas, you are not telling me to be afraid of something that I am not already afraid of. Probably more than you since I have to live here. The fundamentalism that is sweeping this nation is absolutely horrifying. We were never as open or liberal as parts of Europe, but honestly, I think we're going back to Pre-Darwin days. I actually read about this minister who teaches kids how to counter evolution arguements. He holds up pictures of monkeys to a crowded auditorim of children and says, "Did your great-great grandmother look like this?" The children then shout out, "NOOOOOOOO! I am speechless, this is my country? I actually taught government for a year to high school seniors so you're not telling me something I don't already know. Just so you know where I come from, I am a died-in-the-wool Democrat (Mainly because I would never vote Republican,especially as it is now with GWB) ultra-Liberal Catholic. As for spreading democracy, who are they trying to kid, cause it sure isn't me. Not this time, or ANY of the times the US has sought to destabilize other governments for its own business interests.
OK Thomas, there, are we on the same page on this one?
Thomas, A Dane,
You're not back yet but I just read your entire post to Haitham very closely. I URGE you to read his site "Should We" to see what he was trying so hard to do over there. I kind of felt like a peeping tom when I read it because it is a dialog between himself and other Palestinians. But he put it out there on the list so I guess we can all take a look. It's very powerful, so take your time. I think it will give you an insight into the dialog concerning the very people who the "fly in the ointment" affects. See Ya!
Thomas A Dane,
One more thing about the fundamentalist subject. If you look into Haitham's topic "a war of religions, God forbid" you will see that the last poster is a gentlemen named Kingery. I don't know how familiar you are with fundamentalist apocolyptic beliefs but all you have to do is link on to the site Kingery provides to get a whif. This is really scarey stuff because Christian fundamentalists are actually trying to facilitate the end times in order for them to enjoy the rapture. Am I confusing you yet?
The point I'm trying to make is that our own GWB adheres to this belief and that is a factor in his own international policies. Hope I'm not getting off track, but thought it might help adress your concern over fundamentalism here in the US. I myself like the bumper sticker that says, "the rapture is not an exit strategy" which refers to the war in Iraq.
Hi Robin,
I'm one one of those Evangelical Christian fundamentalists. Some of the main points Christians are 'fighting' for are shared by Muslims.
I believe God created people, and the earth, and mutation of species was part of his plan…creationism is part of Islamic belief also.
I don't believe a woman has a right to kill a baby in her womb. Choice begins and ends with using birth control responsibly. Abortion and sex outside of marriage aren't Islamic as far as I have heard.
Homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam as well.
The same Western media that derides and stereotypes Muslims, who you abhor, also derides and stereotypes people of my faith and helps create a hatred of people who actually follow their books of belief.
Most Christians I know are out there feeding the poor, housign the homeless, holding the hand of the hurting one. Probably like most Muslims. But this doesn't make good news, so the media focuses on stirring hatred with their stereotypes and call us the hateful ones. Please don't fall into talking head hatred of either faith.
Kinzi,
Since the title of this site is "we all boil at different degrees" let me begin by saying I would rather stick my foot in ice water than to debate OUR differences of religions beliefs. You say you are fundamentalist evangelical, I say I am a liberal Catholic. Can we leave it at that and agree to disagree about our differences of our own Christian leanings? I did not mean to malign anyone in my statements. I will say that when this US administration believes that the rapture is near and they're going to help it along by implementing certain foreign policies I believe that is down right frightening and at the very least violating the Constitution as to separation of church and state. I believe in freedom of religion as practiced in private within a secular governmental construct. I do NOT believe that religion and politics should mix. Isn't that the very value that has made us the great nation (with a few flaws) that we are?
Robin, with a very devout Catholic army of in-laws, I'll be the last to debate those differences! (in fact, being the sole Evangelical in a family of Catholics is a lot like being the only Muslim in a family who has become a Christian)
My point is that it is easy to label and hate the labeled ones while ignoring the people behind it – which is what I think we agree about with Western media perceptions of Islam. I'm just saying the same thing applies to to us Christian fundies, too.:)
I think our dear president, and whoever advises him, is much more interested in making as much $ before the rapture as possible rather than hastening it! People act like there is some Christian fundamentalist conspiracy to take over the US, which just makes me laugh…we Americans worship our freedom and our stuff too devoutly to allow anyone from any religion to keep us from practicing zealous ferver in entertaining ourselves. Including the followers of Christ…
I agree that religion and politics don't mix well in this culture, but in the culture in which the constitution was framed, there was enough moral fiber in society to keep it together – the commitment to community (which is what a I appreciate about Jordan)was faith based. Now we worship our personal freedom to the point that any idea of re-injecting even the personal values of an elected offical makes people think they will be forced to go to church at gun point. That is inane.
Robin, hope we're still soulmates!
Has anyone out there read "The Islamic States of America" yet? I saw it advertised and wondered…
Hi Kinzi!
On a different note, and I appologize for posting again before you reply, I have been working with the homeless and at an ecumenical food bank for 20 years. I was baptized three years ago. So I also don't think one needs to be a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist or any religion in order to give back to mankind. As student of history, I know that "religion" has done as much harm as good. Yes our different religions give us standards by which to live our lives but some of the finest people I know have been atheists or non-believers. Far too many people use their religions to judge others and I don't wish to do so. I do NOT believe in abortion, and that birth control is your responsibility, but I am not willing to prevent someone else from choice, that is their relation to God and their conscience. I believe in evolution and the Catholic church does not believe there is a conflict between science and religion, that the hand of God is what drove it. But then again, I believed this way before I was baptized. Some of my closest friends are gay and I do not believe they are sinners due to the sexual orientation they were born with. The deciding factor of my acceptance of Catholocism was my priest telling me, "I do not believe God will deny anyone the kingdom of heaven who is a good and kind person in their deeds just because they are not a Christian". I believe that only God can judge a person and it is not my duty to have any judgement of others in these matters cross my lips. I believe in the Golden Rule, but then again this is the basis of a humane society not necessarily a religious doctrine. I do not choose to pay more attention to sin than good. But there I go, insighting a disagreement which is not what I intend to do. I am simply stating my own beliefs, just like you did, I do not believe that is spreading hate. On a final point, you are entitled to your perspective every bit as much but not more than mine and I wish you peace. My foot is suffering hypothermia at the moment and I need a warm sock before I suffer excommunication.
Kinzi,
You're in Jordan, I'm in Los Angeles. We're thousands of miles away thinking, conversing with eachother at the same time. Yes we are still soulmates and I apologize PROFUSELY if my above post hit a nerve. I was being defensive, and you were not. That is very apparent and I hope you will find it in your heart to come back to the table after I might have just jerked off the table cloth. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY. I was not being very Christian even by my own slightly off-beat standards. What is this book you're referring to (that is if you are still willing to talk to me)?
Kinzi,
Another peace offering. I am the only Catholic in a family which ranges from atheists to marginal believers and self-styled spiritualsts. All good people, just different outlooks. So I certainly can relate. Thanks for conversing with me and Peace from half a world away!
Kinzi, Bungle Bungle. We were posting at the same time. Sorry.
Robin, I'm still at the table with clothe and silverware intact. You remind me so much of my newly discovered half-sister I'm just rolling! I'm a California girl (aren't all wanderers?) and am not much younger than you are. I'm by no means offended, I just wanted to have a say. Hope Haitham doesn't mind it happening on his bandwidth!
We have many points on which to agree. I believe God put goodness in the heart of man from the beginning, as it He reflects His nature in all creation (whoops, there I go, a creationist again). I believe it was from the first sin that we all started going our selfish ways and not living out our original purpose – so yes, very good things are done by very unreligious people!
And I agree that God alone will judge – yet he gave us guidelines to live by for our good and the good of those around us. I think we all judge based on our knowledge and experience, and we need to be able to judge well between good and evil. But he alone is the one who meets out the the consequences, not us. I will judge someone's lifestyle, and choose to put differences aside to pursue loving them well…but not use it as a manner of valuing them.
I guess I'm just saying, don't be too afraid of those conspiracy theorists who claim Evangelicals will take all your rights away.Peace to you too, and congrats on your baptism! With your permission, I'd love the honor of praying for you and your work in LA!
Kinzi,
What would you like to have for dinner tonight? Yes, you can say the grace and thankyou for doing so. Here's my email rmclaren@charter.net so we don't tie up Haitham's site. I'd love to talk more.
Robin,
I am quite busy at work at the moment, so I will lay low and spend my spare time reading/skimming a.o. the links you mentioned (at least the intro and the conclusion). By the way, where do I find the "Should We" you mentioned.
I found an article by a Danish professor about isms, which added a couple of good points I hadn't noticed before. I will get back on that one some other time though.
Thank you for recognizing that Atheists can be 'good' people as well. I am happy that you do not belong to the group of religious people who think that Atheists are incabable of being ethical and that Atheism is synonymous with 'moral degeneration'.
As I see it, Christianism (what you call Evangelical Christian Fundamentalism) and Christianist extremists (those who are not inhibited from using violence to force their values on others) are the biggest threat to democracy and personal freedom, because they have the motive, the resources, and the opportunity to violate the rights of everybody who has a different point of view.
The other day I heard a good argument for cannibalism. The argument was that the world would be much better off if the U.S. Administration switched from Imperialism to Cannibalism because their scheme to rule a world population that does not want to be ruled by them is getting a lot more people killed than if they only killed as many people as they could eat! :)
Haitham,
I will probably not surprise you to hear that I have more questions, but I will go to your "Should We" site first to see whether I can find the answers to some of them (what you and your countrymen's plans for democracy are and how we, in the West, can help you get there). If you are quicker on the trigger than Robin, maybe you can give me the link?
Peace to you too :)
Thomas A Dane,
I don't mean to be quicker on the trigger (haha, I am actuality very much against guns, they scare the heck out of me), but I wanted to answer the question you asked me. "Should We" is here on this blog. Go to the right hand listing of the different sites and it's listed under "my favorite posts" or at least it is right at this moment. If it disappears from there, check the archives. I found it to be utterly powerful and the best insight into Haitham I have read. Hope you can really take time to read it closely from beginning to end because I think it is the absolute perfect example depicting a discussion about the Palesininan dialog amongst themselves. A true "must read" Enjoy!
Haitham,
Thanks, I found it. My misunderstanding, I was searching for a website and not looking for a thread.
I guess I understand why you did not post my canibalism joke to Robin since you were working on the HUFU story.
Maybe I will get back with it later and a story about a famous canibal. For now, I will spend some quality time with the wify :)
Thomas the Dane,
Maybe you should meet a few of us dangerous Christian fundamentalists and then decide if we are as much a threat as those who write about us say we are. I've lived in two countries in Europe and am kinda laughing, as most Europeans I know aren't as prone to conspiracy theories!
btw, I also know some great atheists and appreciate their thought provoking ideas. My brother is one, and we have some great discussion.
Kinzi,
I am sorry if you feel offended, but please note that I was talking about Christianists and Christianist extremists. That doesnt' have anything to do with conspiracy theory; it is just an observation of that there are some people who belive strongly and some people who believe forcefully. If you belong to the first group, then we can live peacefully together in a civilized world, but if you cannot tolerate that I do not believe in your ways and if you think it is your calling to 'show me the light' and correct 'my evil ways' then we cannot.
That your emperor keeps admitting that God is participating in his decision making though he is supposed to be the president of a country where church and state is separated is a hint to me that he may belong to the second group. If he had not admitted it, then it would be a conspiracy theory, but since he readily admits to it then it is my perception based on an observation.
By the way, I have always found it a bit strange that someone who talks to God is a believer, but someone who talks to blue elephants is mentally ill. ;)
Kinzi and Thomas,
I can honestly say that about half my friends are "fundamentalists". I'm a liberal (very liberal) Catholic.
Perhaps Thomas and I are making the same exact mistake that is made when discussing Fundamentalist Islam. I don't know Kinzi how much access you have to news here on the forefront but Thomas is correct when he says that fundamentalism is on the rise here in the US, and unfortunately, it's of the forceful nature that he is referring to. Fundamentalists who wish to dramatically change our secular nation are using the voting booth and the pulpit to enact laws and elect representatives to do the same. These laws are DEFINITELY right straight out of the Bible which is even being forced by them to use in the classroom. Then we have the honorable Reverand Pat Robertson suggesting the the assassination of Hugo Chavez. The crazies are there Kinzi, no doubt about it. Some of the worse hatred I have seen thrown at Moslems over on other blogs is from self proclaimed fundamentalist Christians. I think that is the distinction that needs to be made. I had one of those enlightening momemets yesterday when I realized that the goal of ANY religion is to spread. This earth is becoming way to small for all these ideas to peacefully coexist if the adherants are not willing to take their faiths back to the privated realm. That goes for all of them. Having said that though, I think the basic tenets of these religions ARE to give us guidelines. I just think the balance is at a dangerous point in our history right now. I think EVERYONE should be able to practice their faith, in church, in private, in charities. But the problem I think is that too often the forceful fundamentalists Thomas is referring to (both Moslem and Christian or whatever)are crossing the line into the realm of forcing their values on others. Yes, I know their intentions are good, but for those of us others who do not share those same values it scares the heck out of them. Having said that, Peace and Prayers to both of you if I may, I'll be sure to perform them in the quiet of my own mind.
One more thought. When the forceful type of fundamentalism is so very much in bed so to speak with our current administration, what ARE people to think. These two ARE in cahoots with eachother Kinzi and it DOES scare me. But you do not and neither do the friends I have who are more rational. Peace:)
One more thought. When the forceful type of fundamentalism is so very much in bed so to speak with our current administration, what ARE people to think. These two ARE in cahoots with eachother Kinzi and it DOES scare me. But you do not and neither do the friends I have who are more rational. Peace:)
Haitham, thank you for your excellent explaination in post 35. It is nice to hear about attempts and stratagies to change repressive regimes. And about what actions hurt and help.
Robin, greetings from an evangelical Christian, politically conserative, gun owning American. Please ponder your concern, shared by Thomas, A Dane, that there is a movement to 'force' people to live a certian way. I know many Fundemental Christians and conservative Catholics, most of them strong republicans(I tend more libertarian) who have no desire to force their beliefs on anyone or to make them change their lifestyles. Many of us are, however, troubled by the attempt of many in America religate religion to the same place it now holds in Europe. Please reread the constitution. It DOES NOT call for the separation of church and state. That was a belief created by the Warren Court. It says congress can not create a state religion or prevent the free excerse there of. Many of us feel we are trying to reclaim rights that have been stolen, many in my own lifetime. When I was in public elementary school, the teacher would say grace before we went to lunch. There was a prayer for protection before ball games and Christmas pagents in schools. Not in an attempt to preach, but as recognition of our shared values. I do not think these things are unconstitutional. It was common pratice for over for 180 years after the Constitution was ratified. Now, if the people of any state, county, or city decide(democratically) they do not want that practice, then it should not be allowed. I am confident Californians would maintain the status quo. I hardly believe that is a radical idea, letting democracy decide.
If however, we start talking about a forced code of behavior, or forced worship then most 'evangelicals' will be the first to object. Christians greatly value the freedom of religion.
I know this web site is not about American religion, but the subject was being discussed and I could not help but respond.
Peace to all of you.
Wylie,
In short, I taught US government to high school honors students as well as history. Warrren Court huh? Well there you go blaming our liberal ex-governor from California who went on to become the Chief Justice of our US Supreme Court. I think he would be proud to have you think he is responsible for separation of church and state as it has become, but alas, it was the framers Please don't accuse Mr. Warren of something he didn't do. I also said grace in my public school as a child. That was before I even knew some other people of different faiths might not feel comfortable. I cherish our American freedom to practice ones own faith, just don't do it in the public arena. This is not the forum to discuss the US constitution. I am a liberal democrat and Catholic who believes in keeping your religion in your own life, church and family. If you don't like something you think is too liberal, don't do it. I sure hope you have those guns in a safe place but every responsible gun owner knows that. And no this is not the place to discuss the role of the American Fundamentalist movement encroaching on my rights or Thomas's concern from a European view. We got off topic. But I must admit I'm on simmer.
Haitham, if you read here, bring us all back if you can. Or maybe the topic itself led to this digression. Maybe that WAS the topic. I just had a moment of revelation! Or maybe it's just a headache. Peace to all, yes and to you too Wylie.
PS the topic was about people saying Islam teaches hatred and then Haitham posted verses from the Torah and other Judaic writings to make a point. He also set us all up. Thanks Haitham!
I read all of this post. What I found most interesting was that a lot was digging up of the past.
When I was a teenager I "fell in love" with a beautiful blonde and blue eyed girl in my class. Her father was a pilot for the German air force during WWII. My mother told me not to associate with her. My father asked me where they lived. I told him and he went to visit him with a bottle of booze and they spent several nights talking about something they would not tell me. My father was in the Danish Resistence. My girlfriend's father was a pilot over Denmark, when Denmark surrenderd.
The past is the past. Dwell on it and you will suffer the past.
Accept the world today as it is and forget the past and you will be a better person.
If we all dwelled on the past the crusades would start all over again. The Spanish Inquisition would start again. So would a lot of other wasted religious faults.
Can the individual not have any say in this world? Has big corp. ruined our say in this world?
Could this be a problem? Big corp. is controlling this world and religion is just trying to get a small bit of control?
Religion is important to most people and big corp. find this as a hurdle that has to be removed. Obviously most big corp. that are religious are Christian. Starting to explain a lot.
I don't know if I am rambling but I see things that bother me.
Kimmy,
I followed your rambling which was probably just as clear as "normal" writing, possibly more so, even if I DID have to read it three times! Is it the religion thing that bothers you the most? Cause I know it scares me. It scares me when other people try to force their's on me. But even as I am writing this I am realizing that they think I'm trying to force my ideas on them. They even consider your spirituality as your religion, or another's atheism as theirs. Why can't we all be talking about DEEDS rather than beliefs? The business thing, well that's a subject of a ten-volume text. You're right, we CANNOT do a damn thing about the past. We all have to act in an ethical manner NOW. Is it possible for that to include the values of a religion? Maybe there is a very big distinction. It took me ONE HECK OF A LONG TIME to dedicate to my Catholocism. And even then, as an educated rational person I hope to God I am able to decipher the value from the insistance of others to believe the same. I think you are referring to spiritulism and humanism as being better tools to use for the good of the world. I agree with you on that. But maybe, just maybe one can find that within relgion. I don't know, I'm beginning to question it myself a bit. Too much of it is a means to prove your right. After all, it IS the one topic I find indiscussable for the sheer fact it is FAITH and not science. Here I've gone on a major ramble. Hope I made a little sense. Masalama
Brilliant, brilliant post! And what does it tell us about Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Avoid!
Please don't be upset by this, but I do believe that organised religions have caused an awful lot of trouble through the centuries. The various Holy Books provide an essential moral code, but they are also overlaid with their own agenda which can be misused by fanatics.
These three interlinked religions have all been very useful in the past, but I believe very strongly that they should not be a part of government these days. The world has moved on from needing a 'manual' to tell people how to live.
Religion in the west used to control education. And it really prevented development, because only God can invent things. Once the West got over that prohibition we got electricity, trains, cars, aeroplanes, telephones, computers and everything else you can imagine. Some blokes went to the moon!
The Islamic world is still mostly controlled by religion, and so the early fire of discovery has been well and truly doused. Muslims are proud to proclaim some of their amazing dicoveries / inventions, but the very sad fact is that they were all about a thousand years ago.
Islam has a terrible reputation in the western world now, because at no stage has it ever publicly condemned any acts of terror (I may be wrong on this – feel free to educate me). Because it has no single leadership figure who can stand up and say 'not in the name of Islam'. Because a lot of little guys in masjids say 'way to go guys! do it some more!'
The idea that some Muslims can be wound up to the point of killing people and burning down buildings because somebody printed some cartoons they've never seen, causes extreme bafflement in the west. This is not rational behaviour, now is it?
Keefieboy,
Were you adreessing me? Because if you were I am not at all upset by your statements. I was a Government/history teacher so I agree with you 100% about religion used for harm. Yes the three religions are interconnected but perhaps, the insistance on being "right" sets these three up even more for conflict. As a little girl I always knew "three" could spell disaster for friendship. Just when you think you're all buddies, two of them gang up on the one left. In this case it has been (please note my personal pespective) Fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism ganging up on Islam, which has reverted to violence justified by the terrorists own self-serving interpretation of the Koran. It's perhaps a simplistic statement, but the bottom line is that in these days we are experiencing now, religion has again raised it's very ugly head. Each of the three are positioning themselves to be the "right" and righteous victor as noted by their deeds.
On the other hand, and I hope you don't mind me saying this, I think there are some basic human values taught by the various prophets of all these religions. When religion attaches itself to nationalism, that's when the trouble begins. As for myself, I may state I am a Catholic but that does not give you very much information about me. Sometimes I wear the label with pride, and other times I would be referred to as a "Cafeteria Catholic" who picks and chooses just the parts I find convenient. It does not offend me whatsoever if someone suggests I could be wrong Because here the arguement comes full circle: religion used to point to other belief processes as incorrect is not what I seek. If a person keeps his religion to himself, performs good deeds for whatever reason, and is kind to eachother, then that is when they exemplify religion best. We all know poor examples of all religions, that's what makes it difficult for me on a personal level.
Just on a note, there are prisons across the mideast housing terrorists, more than in the West. They have spoken out and for that they receive more attack. Thanks!
Keefieboy
The word about religion that you used-Avoid.
NO, don't avoid. This is from an atheist.
The true religions preach peace and tolerance.
I don't believe, but I believe in peace and tolerance.
Does that make me religious. NO
Does that make religious people right. NO.
Too many interpertations (bad spelling?) of religious books make too many different views.
The problem is too many different views and not enough actual thought about the original teachings.
Just an atheist view.
Amen to that, Kimmy
I second that AMEN from Thomas. And that comes from a liberal Catholic who attends Mass each week! (a contradiction, I think NOT!)
I said something right?
Thanks Thomas and Robin.
I am only expressing my views and my feelings.
{ 4 } Trackbacks
[...] et another moving editorial on Jill's ordeal, Here is an excerpt: Haitham Sabbah [...]
[...] ng violence in the light of the infamous Danish cartoons and what followed. Haitham thinks we all boil at different degrees : please allow me to take some snaps [...]
[...] ng violence in the light of the infamous Danish cartoons and what followed. Haitham thinks we all boil at different degrees : please allow me to take some snaps [...]
[...] ott from Oregon | 03.02.06 – 11:18 am | # http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/20…ferent-degrees/ Eve [...]