Surprising article. Muslims being self critical!

Status
Not open for further replies.

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Massacre Draws Self-Criticism in Muslim Press
By JOHN KIFNER

Published: September 9, 2004

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 8 - The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has touched off an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but so were the killers of Nepalese workers in Iraq; the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week; and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable 'achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.

"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."

Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."

A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists - were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."

"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, toward our monotheistic religion."
 
This is one of the most honest statements I have ever seen by a Muslim.

Yet, according to my understanding of Isalm, jihad is one of the five pillars and historically, at least, Islam has been spread by the sword. Violence and Islam seem to me to be joined together at the hip.
 
Huguenot:

The 5 pillars of Islam are:

1) The [i:5abf7b8c41]shahaada[/i:5abf7b8c41], or declaration of faith -which I will omit because of its inherent blasphemy (in my opinion).

2) [i:5abf7b8c41]Salaat[/i:5abf7b8c41] (daily prayer) -5 times a day (facing towards Mecca).

3) [i:5abf7b8c41]Ramadan[/i:5abf7b8c41] (the month of fasting based on lunar cycles).

4) [i:5abf7b8c41]Zakat[/i:5abf7b8c41] (almsgiving)

5) The [i:5abf7b8c41]Hajj[/i:5abf7b8c41] (pilgrimage to Mecca).

It would seem historically that [i:5abf7b8c41]jihad [/i:5abf7b8c41]should be one of their pillars though...like the million or so Christians who were wiped out in Armenia at the beginning of the 20th century as the Ottoman Empire finally crumpled exemplifies.

I would agree that it's a decent statement...and ABOUT TIME!!! Also, I noticed as I read the text of the full article by the first person mentioned (Mr. Rashed ) in today's Dallas Morning News that there was ZERO mention of the 9/11 wickedness contained within it. Maybe he's only trying to cover his backside from the anti-American fanatics in his own country but the omission was glaring (to me).
 
Thanks for the info. You are correct in listing the five pillars above. Jihad (ie., Holy War or internal struggle) is a disputed sixth pillar, apparently. However, it seems to be the chief pillar of the modern Islamist movement, at least from my perspective.
 
Islamic extremists are only a small percentage of the muslim world. They can just do a lot of damage. They twist the meaning of jihad and change it from the standard orthodox meaning of inner struggle. 'Holy War' was and is a meaning but it was never the number 1 meaning.

To blame all Muslims for terrorism is like saying the same for us Christians as we have killed around 12 million people in the name of Christ over the last 2000 years. I have found a lot of hatred for the middle east is a simple lack of knowledge due mostly to American education.
 
With all due respect, Fraser, your defense of Islam and attack on Christianity is misplaced. No one on this thread said anything about blaming all Muslims for terrorism. Neither can I imagine where you got the specific number of people who allegedly have been killed in the name of Christ in the last 2000 years. And your sweeping generalization about hatred of the Middle East stemming from American education is absurd. I would encourage you to be more prudent in your comments.
 
[quote:c4d78e21a7="VirginiaHuguenot"]With all due respect, Fraser, your defense of Islam and attack on Christianity is misplaced. No one on this thread said anything about blaming all Muslims for terrorism. Neither can I imagine where you got the specific number of people who allegedly have been killed in the name of Christ in the last 2000 years.[/quote:c4d78e21a7] Sorry if I read between the lines wrong but it did seem to me like the Muslims were all being lumped together in the same boat. That number was from memory. It was used during a 'debate' on campus about whether Christians were the most ruthless of people which the Atheists claimed. They lost as they have killed tens of times more than us in one century alone. Even still we must face up to the fact that people claiming to be Christians, often in the name of Christ have done terrible things. We might disown many of them but the world still sees them as one of ours. What about the brutal treatment of the native Americans? What about the hostility of the puritans towards them? Then what about in Lebanon the Christian massacres of THOUSANDS of muslims. We do not have perfect hands so I believe I am right in pointing such facts out.

[quote:c4d78e21a7="VirginiaHuguenot"]And your sweeping generalization about hatred of the Middle East stemming from American education is absurd. I would encourage you to be more prudent in your comments.[/quote:c4d78e21a7]Well it certainly seems that lack of understanding of the middle east is rife in the US - maybe it is just society but blaming education is probably less insulting than other things I could blame it on...
 
[quote:729aa70632="Abd_Yesua_alMasih"]Islamic extremists are only a small percentage of the muslim world. They can just do a lot of damage. They twist the meaning of jihad and change it from the standard orthodox meaning of inner struggle. 'Holy War' was and is a meaning but it was never the number 1 meaning.
[/quote:729aa70632]

Who determines what the orthodox meaning of jihad is? My view is that the majority of muslims that do not take the viewpoint of the extremists are the ones being inconsistent with the sacred texts.

[quote:729aa70632]
To blame all Muslims for terrorism is like saying the same for us Christians as we have killed around 12 million people in the name of Christ over the last 2000 years. I have found a lot of hatred for the middle east is a simple lack of knowledge due mostly to American education.[/quote:729aa70632]

I personally would look at what the sacred texts tell us to do and how those who wrote the text interpreted them with their lives. Any person or group can hijack stuff for their own evil purposes. So that should come way down the list of ways to analyse things.

CT
 
I agree with CT. A savvy anti-theist would quickly point out the Joshua campaign as proof that the Bible commands the Covenant people to violence. I would point out that that command was not given to us and should not be repeated. What would you all say?
 
Finn'

I would agree with your assessment and point out that God specifically used the Israelites as an instrument of judgment against the perverse Canaanites, Amorites, etc. whose evil God bore with for some 400 years before He chose to destroy them. See Genesis (15:12-16); Leviticus (18: 24-30); Deuteronomy (8:16-26;)(9:1-6).

I have heard the skeptic object to this line of reasoning by claiming that it was simply a cynical ploy to use religion to dupe the ancient people into such a bloody work for political gain. But that argument assumes the falsehood of the Biblical record at the outset and also assumes that God has no prerogative to judge men in history. Not to mention that (like all men) it fails to take into consideration the extreme view that the God of all Holiness takes against sin and its consequences.

How can we as believers not take into consideration the idea that God is constantly judging peoples when "the fulness of time" has arrived? We know from many Scriptural references that God often uses "the sword" to judge various nations.

With that said, I have to admit that I'm not real conversant with a lot of the historical facts of the relations between the Puritans and American Indians and I have recently had an acquaintance throw the charge of "atrocities committed by the Puritans" in my face (although, in a logical sense, it really had nothing to do with the idea that I thought the Puritans were a brilliant community of people, [arguably the most literate that ever existed], etc.). Also, of all the groups in America that made treaties with the indigenous people, I believe it was the Puritan's who held to their word the longest -probably till the true zeal for God's standard eventually gave way to a shell a formalism (like all religious movements seem to do)
.
Also, like most people who point out the Indian vs. Puritan angle, it is usually never mentioned that plenty of the Indians also committed their own share of atrocities (such as cannibalism, systematic torture, etc.) and weren't the peaceful "noble savages" that they are often romanticized as.

While it isn't a very comfortable topic in these days of humanistic egalitarianism that finds such a notion of God bringing judgment upon a race of people reprehensible, can we as Christians totally discount the idea that God used the European race to bring judgment against the Indian tribes?
Do we ignore these harsh considerations to our own peril by not seeking God's FULL counsel?
Or do I greatly err in understanding God's actions in this Gospel age?
 
[quote:4fa0af8bed="ChristianTrader"]Who determines what the orthodox meaning of jihad is? My view is that the majority of muslims that do not take the viewpoint of the extremists are the ones being inconsistent with the sacred texts.[/quote:4fa0af8bed]Orthodoxy is found in the teachings of the Rasheed and the early fatwas etc...

The Qur'an does not preach war when put in context. Just like the bible it has times where war is preached for a certain cause and for the safety of the people etc... Yes there is a part where it says "Kill every polytheist you see" but that is taken out of context all the time. This is before a Battle where the Polytheist Meccans have declared war on Muhammad and it is like saying 'Kill or be killed'... If you can come up with a stable argument that Qur'an teachs Islamic extremism then I will listen. Last of all let me point of the opening line of almost ever surah - 'Bism Allah aRahman aRaheem' - In the name of Allah the Merciful and the Compassionate - hardly the start of a war message.
 
Fraser...

How about these:

(2:151)
Do not say that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead; they are alive, although you are not aware of them.

(2:190)
Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first.

(2:193)
Fight them on, until there is no more tumult, seduction, or oppression, and there prevail justice, faith in Allah, and the religion becomes Islam.

(3:110)
You, the Umma, are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind. All others are inferior.

(4:74)
Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whether they die or conquer. We shall richly reward them.

(4:76)
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan.

(5:33)
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

(5:51)
Umma, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of youi seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide such infidels.

(8:13; 17)
I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels, smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not you whio slay them; it is Allah.

(8:60)
Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God, who are also your enemies.

(9:5)
When Ramadan is over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

(9:14)
Kill the infidels, and God will torment them and cover them with shame.

(9:26)
Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah aand his prophet have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

(9:38)
Umma, why is it that when it is said to you "March in the cause of Allah" you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with that life in preference to the life of Paradise? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come.

(9:41)
Whether unarmed ir well equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your persons.

(9:73)
Prophet, make war on the infidels and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.

(48:29)
Muhammed is Allah's prophet. Those who follow him are ruthless to the infidels but merciful to one another.

(61:4, 9-13)
Surely Allah loves those who fight in his way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall. He it is who sent his prophet with the guidance and trhe true religion, that he may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the infidel Christians may be averse. O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a merchandise which may deliver you from a painful chastisement? You shall belive in Allah and his prophet, and struggle hard in Allah's way with your property and your lives; ...


[b:e496ce7dc7]Are we to believe [/b:e496ce7dc7]that NOT ONE of these principles is to be considered as a universal precept of Islam?

Your assertion that

"This is before a Battle where the Polytheist Meccans have declared war on Muhammad and it is like saying 'Kill or be killed'... "

is contrary to others who state that

"Muhammed was not at war with anyone when he began dictating the Suras of the Koran. Rather, he was a preosperous citizen of a leading family in a peaceful commercial center, which had not known armed conflict for many years. War came only after he revealed his plans to cleanse Mecca of its Kafir (infidels)" (Dr. George Grant, [u:e496ce7dc7]The Blood of the Moon [/u:e496ce7dc7]p.51)

It seems to me that such a view flies in the face of much of Islamic history.
What are we to make of the many fatwas that are issued by contemporary Imams? Are they ALL unorthodox?

It also seems to me that the supreme example of Islamic orthodoxy would be found in the life of Muhammed himself. I'm sure that you don't even want to get into [i:e496ce7dc7]that[/i:e496ce7dc7] issue. With such a warlord as Islam's supreme example of their faith, how can they ever shed the legacy of (as you put it) "Islamic extremism"?

I would contend that they cannot.
 
[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"]
(2:151)
Do not say that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead; they are alive, although you are not aware of them.[/quote:ca351b1c99] In context it is no different from saying that martyrs have eternal life. It does not say how they have to die etc... but this was during Muhammads time in Medina when the Polytheists were a constant danger. Something needed to be said to keep morale. Before hand it talks about being patient etc... and to keep praying. This was when the Muslim ummah was in grave danger of being destroyed by the pagans...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](2:190)
Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first.[/quote:ca351b1c99]At this particular time war had been declared between Mecca and Medina - started by the Pagans - and it was one of those times where if you do not fight you die. It was in defence...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](2:193)
Fight them on, until there is no more tumult, seduction, or oppression, and there prevail justice, faith in Allah, and the religion becomes Islam.[/quote:ca351b1c99]They were in a war with Mecca which the Pagans started - obviously the Muslims wanted to win. These revelations are one off orders to the fighters at the time...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"] (3:110)
You, the Umma, are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind. All others are inferior.[/quote:ca351b1c99] All that shows is the Muslims believe themselve to be right... it is not a call to violence. How different is it from Jesus saying, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me'?

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](4:74)
Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whether they die or conquer. We shall richly reward them.[/quote:ca351b1c99]In context that sounds very different. Before hand it talks about the troubles of soldiers not working together, lagging behind etc and 'missing the action' (probably refering to them being cowards or just weak) This verse is then reminding those people that they will not fail to be rewarded and they have nothing to loose.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](4:76)
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan.[/quote:ca351b1c99]There was a war on which the muslims didnt start... this is no different from saying "God is on our side and the other side is the evil enemy"

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](5:33)
The punishment of those who [b:ca351b1c99]wage war[/b:ca351b1c99] against Allah and his Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.[/quote:ca351b1c99] Wage war is the key term - The Muslim Ummah back then was far from stable and they needed to fight to stay alive.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](5:51)
Umma, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of youi seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide such infidels.[/quote:ca351b1c99]The Arabic word for friend here is awliaa (wali) which is not exactly 'friend' in English (we just do not have the same concept) - it is closer to patron, protector etc... but in a more friendly context. This was advice given because about this time the Muslims were realising they were on their own. Christians and Jews had betrayed them and could not be trusted. If the Muslims wanted something done they would have to do it themselves...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"] (8:13; 17)
I will instill terror into the hearts of the infidels, smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not you whio slay them; it is Allah.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Believe it or not that is talking about the past as it is started off with "Allah said" - it is talking about the Battle of Badr and the Muslim victory and how it was such a miracle.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](8:60)
Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God, who are also your enemies.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Again - the muslims were in danger...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:5)
When Ramadan is over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Mecca had broken the truce during Ramadan and Muhammad in Medina told his men to 'back away' until the holy month was over - but after that fight - they must kill the polytheists as soon as they see them as the polytheists were doing the same thing...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:14)
Kill the infidels, and God will torment them and cover them with shame..[/quote:ca351b1c99]They broke the treaty and declared war... it is simply saying that the Muslims should kill the polytheists who are attacking them and God will do his part also.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:26)
Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah aand his prophet have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Again it is a call to arms... in the Battle of Hunain 12,000 Muslims were almost beaten by 4,000 polytheists as they were frightened and tried to run away BUT eventually regained their nerve and 'with the aid of Allah' won the battle. In the aya before it is simply saying that the muslim goal is to capture the holy shrine in mecca by the end of the year as the war had been on too long...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:38)
Umma, why is it that when it is said to you "March in the cause of Allah" you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with that life in preference to the life of Paradise? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Again the muslim army was having problems with cowardnice and apathy which never helps an army...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:41)
Whether unarmed ir well equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your persons.[/quote:ca351b1c99] It obviously is better to fight for the protection of the ummah than be a coward who says they havnt got good enoough weapons etc...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](9:73)
Prophet, make war on the infidels and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.[/quote:ca351b1c99]*sigh* I feel like I am repeating myself a lot.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](48:29)
Muhammed is Allah's prophet. Those who follow him are ruthless to the infidels but merciful to one another.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Infidels at that time were the polytheists waging war on Islam... it was kill or be killed.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"](61:4, 9-13)
Surely Allah loves those who fight in his way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall. He it is who sent his prophet with the guidance and trhe true religion, that he may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the infidel Christians may be averse. O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a merchandise which may deliver you from a painful chastisement? You shall belive in Allah and his prophet, and struggle hard in Allah's way with your property and your lives; ....[/quote:ca351b1c99]The Muslims needed to fight as a team which obviously they were having trouble doing... and some Christians had stabbed them in the back


[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"][b:ca351b1c99]Are we to believe [/b:ca351b1c99]that NOT ONE of these principles is to be considered as a universal precept of Islam?[/quote:ca351b1c99]Yes

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"]"Muhammed was not at war with anyone when he began dictating the Suras of the Koran. Rather, he was a preosperous citizen of a leading family in a peaceful commercial center, which had not known armed conflict for many years. War came only after he revealed his plans to cleanse Mecca of its Kafir (infidels)" (Dr. George Grant, [u:ca351b1c99]The Blood of the Moon [/u:ca351b1c99]p.51)[/quote:ca351b1c99] Exactly - he did not start off that way. War started when he began to preach and the pagans did not like the idea of repentance. He was still dictating suras during the wars...

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"]It seems to me that such a view flies in the face of much of Islamic history.
What are we to make of the many fatwas that are issued by contemporary Imams? Are they ALL unorthodox?[/quote:ca351b1c99]At least in Sunni Islam the first Companions of the Prophet, or the Rashid, were the ones who put it orthodoxy together. Orthodoxy is also found in the Hadith.

[quote:ca351b1c99="SmokingFlax"]It also seems to me that the supreme example of Islamic orthodoxy would be found in the life of Muhammed himself. I'm sure that you don't even want to get into [i:ca351b1c99]that[/i:ca351b1c99] issue.[/quote:ca351b1c99]Muhammad had to fight to survive but he also preached peace. He taught of giving mercy to Women and Children and told his men not to destroy infastructure etc... they fought for survival in most cases. They were not perfect but it was far from what you are suggesting.
 
Last year on saturdays I would go to a special school for Iraqi kids and learn Arabic. It was also an Islamic school and I learnt a lot. Very interesting discussions...
 
No worse than atheism and the standard person you meet on the street. They will never listen to the gospel if we insult them with untrue facts about what the Qur'an teaches.
 
This is a Moderator interjection. [quote:513825b5c7="VirginiaHuguenot"]It's hard to tell.[/quote:513825b5c7] This is uncalled-for commentary. And the question posed prior was beyond the pale as well. There are people on this board from all over the map--geographically, politically, educationally, you name it. The one thing that binds us together is our stated commitment to a Reformed Christian faith. You better have more to go on than expressed disagreement in a "general forum" topic before questioning somebody's commitment to that faith expression.

God grant the gift! "To see ourselves as others see us." R. Burns.
 
Here are some more examples of "Islamic extremism" from that fountain of Orthodoxy -The Hadith (an early anthology of the sayings, legends, and parables of Muhammad):

(1:13)
I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me.

-I know, I know...those poor hapless and peaceful Muslims were just defending themselves and such is the context in which we should read this.

(1:25)
Muhammad once was asked: "What is the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and his Prophet?" His answer was, "To participate in Ji'had, in Allah's cause."

(1:35)
Muhammad also said, "The person who participates in Ji'had and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and his prophet, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty, or he will be admitted to paradise."

-Here we have two clear references to [b:e3c6c46ebe]Ji'had[/b:e3c6c46ebe] which "Fraser" insists is simply a metaphor for the internal spiritual struggle. Yet notice here how Muhammad equates [b:e3c6c46ebe]Ji'had[/b:e3c6c46ebe] (in 1:25) with the phrase [b:e3c6c46ebe]'Allah's cause[/b:e3c6c46ebe].' This is the same phrase used in Sura (9:38 and 9:41) that, (as I posted above), Muhammad uses to spur on his troops which "Fraser" has plainly admitted refers to physical-this worldly, battle.

-Even more devastating to "Fraser's" argument are the words in (1:35 above). Here we see Muhammad, first of all, guaranteeing for the participant in [b:e3c6c46ebe]Ji'had[/b:e3c6c46ebe] a measure of "[b:e3c6c46ebe]booty[/b:e3c6c46ebe]". No matter how you stretch it, booty is always taken to mean the plunders of war. My [u:e3c6c46ebe]American Heritage Dictionary[/u:e3c6c46ebe] defines it:

1. Loot taken from an enemy. 2. Seized or stolen goods.

Just how does acquiring "booty" square with an "inner struggle" Fraser?

Furthermore, having shown that Ji'had is not just a spiritual struggle, this may be the most egregious flaw in Fraser's argument/apology...In verse (1:35 above) we see that Muhammad also set before the potential Ji'hadi (?) the guarantee of [b:e3c6c46ebe]paradise[/b:e3c6c46ebe]. Perhaps I do not understand Islam correctly here but paradise as it is commonly understood in Christianity is practically synonymous with Heaven (or, perhaps, a restoration of the pre-Fall Eden where man can commune with God in perfection). This means that there is a universal concept/principle ([b:e3c6c46ebe]Paradise[/b:e3c6c46ebe]) being tied together with what you (Fraser) are saying is NOT a universal Islamic precept (Ji'had).

So...which is it?

There is your smoking gun...(from a smoking flax even...)

(4:196)
Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

Are we to assume that this (once again universal statement) was only valid in Muhammad's lifetime? If so, what does that speak of the rest of his teachings"

(4:73)
Muhammmad also said, "Know that paradise is under the shade of the swords."

-Here is Heaven plainly being portrayed as being gained by the works of war -salvation by works. How can you not see the clear extremism in this one statement?

(9:4)
Wherever you find the [b:e3c6c46ebe]infidels[/b:e3c6c46ebe], kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.

-[b:e3c6c46ebe]Infidels[/b:e3c6c46ebe], I will remind you, that are clearly identified as Jews and Christians in Sura (5:51 above).

(9:50)
Muhammad said: "No Umma should be killed for killing a Kafir."

-Here we have a clear and egregious violation and blatant contradiction of God's holy commandment given through Moses.

(Exodus 20:13) You shall not commit murder.

This cannot be considered as referring to the conditions of war for obvious reasons. It is a civic law -and patently unjust. The Mosaic Law of the Israelites demanded that even the stranger in the land be given fair and equal justice -regardless of their religious profession.

(Exodus 23:9) Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

(9:57)
Muhammad said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

-We've all heard accounts of this one being enacted in our day.

[b:e3c6c46ebe]SmokingFlax wrote:[/b:e3c6c46ebe]
(3:110)
You, the Umma, are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind. All others are inferior.

[b:e3c6c46ebe]Abd_Yesua_alMasih wrote:[/b:e3c6c46ebe]
All that shows is the Muslims [b:e3c6c46ebe]believe themselve to be right[/b:e3c6c46ebe]... it is not a call to violence. How different is it from Jesus saying, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me'?

I have to say that this text (Sura 3:110) is absolutely [b:e3c6c46ebe]NOTHING[/b:e3c6c46ebe] like (John 14:6) which you have mis-quoted. Christ points straight to HIMSELF and never gives [b:e3c6c46ebe]any[/b:e3c6c46ebe] room for the believer to puff himself up with such an extreme humanistic statement as (3:110). While any religious adherent would be right in believing their position to be correct (otherwise why practice your particular faith), no believer worth his salt would dare say that he himself is intrinsically superior to the unbeliever. Usually it is the opposite when he catches a glimpse of his own wretched sinfulness.


So Fraser...are you going to keep your word?

Re: "If you can come up with a stable argument that Qur'an teachs Islamic extremism then I will listen."

If, in fact, you are a Muslim, then praise God that at least you are fortunate enough to believe in God -there are many who trod the hopeless path of atheism. But the real question is: What are you going to do about your sins when you have to stand before the bar of God's perfect justice?

(John 1:17) For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
 
Moderating Again! [quote:d01e2503a2="SmokingFlax"]If, in fact, you are a Muslim, ...[/quote:d01e2503a2] If this happens again, I will see to it the thread is locked.
 
I apologize for the violation.
I did not see the several posts between my last one and Huguenot's initial question as I was busy typing my response. If I had seen them I would have adjusted my comments accordingly.
 
Let's be more careful how we post here. I believe that Islam is a religion of the devil, designed to get men to worship Satan and his false prophet, Mohommed, but we should not be in the business of suggesting that others here are not Christians.

The charitable (and hence Biblical, 1 Peter 4:8) reading here would be that Fraser is attempting to assist Christians in presenting a more formidable defense against Islam.

Thank you Christopher for your retraction. Carry on.
 
First of all I am not nearly as familiar with the Hadith and do not have a copy of any of the its writings on me but I will go through and explain some things as best I can.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"](1:13)
I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me..[/quote:648bc6513c]I honestly can not answer this one as I can not check the context. Please note I am not saying Muslims have clean hands - they certainly spread with violence but not nearly as much as the west likes to make out.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"](1:25)
Muhammad once was asked: "What is the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and his Prophet?" His answer was, "To participate in Ji'had, in Allah's cause."[/quote:648bc6513c] Two things to note - 1) There are two meanings for Ji'had - no one disputes that - BUT the idea of Jihad being an inner struggle is the main one so even if this is refering to 'holy war' (which is never a good translation of the word) then that does not proove everything I said wrong. 2) Secondly is context - I am not able to read all the rest of the text around it but that has the makings of an out of context quote. If it was said during his stay in Medina then he might be refering to a type of fighting Jihad as to fight was the only way to keep the community standing.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"](1:35)
Muhammad also said, "The person who participates in Ji'had and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and his prophet, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty, or he will be admitted to paradise."[/quote:648bc6513c]That is saying first of all that they must participate in Jihad out of belief in al-ilahu and Muhammad and not out of being forced into it. Now as to what this meaning is I concede that theologians believe it to be the meaning of Holy Battle. This could though be nothing more than giving courage to his outnumbered men.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]-Here we have two clear references to [b:648bc6513c]Ji'had[/b:648bc6513c] which "Fraser" insists is simply a metaphor for the internal spiritual struggle[/quote:648bc6513c]There are two meanings but the most accepted as the greatest meaning is the internal literal struggle to do the will of Allah when every other part of your body says to do something else. Jihad is literaly a struggle to please God...


[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]Muhammad uses to spur on his troops which "Fraser" has plainly admitted refers to physical-this worldly, battle.[/quote:648bc6513c]Yes, a physical, worldly battle which he did not start and it was hardly a message for all time.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]-Even more devastating to "Fraser's" argument are the words in (1:35 above). Here we see Muhammad, first of all, guaranteeing for the participant in [b:648bc6513c]Ji'had[/b:648bc6513c] a measure of "[b:648bc6513c]booty[/b:648bc6513c]". No matter how you stretch it, booty is always taken to mean the plunders of war. My [u:648bc6513c]American Heritage Dictionary[/u:648bc6513c] defines it: [/quote:648bc6513c]You should know we should not go by American English definitions but by Arabic definitions. I will need to find an Arabic copy but until then all I can say is Muslims who fought with Muhammad recieved rewards and special benifits which the Christians and the Jews did not get. (Pagans being as evil as they are were not allowed to live within Muslim land. If they refused to leave then they were killed although there are differences in opinion on this)

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]-Furthermore, having shown that Ji'had is not just a spiritual struggle, this may be the most egregious flaw in Fraser's argument/apology...In verse (1:35 above) we see that Muhammad also set before the potential Ji'hadi (?) the guarantee of [b:648bc6513c]paradise[/b:648bc6513c]. Perhaps I do not understand Islam correctly here but paradise as it is commonly understood in Christianity is practically synonymous with Heaven (or, perhaps, a restoration of the pre-Fall Eden where man can commune with God in perfection). This means that there is a universal concept/principle ([b:648bc6513c]Paradise[/b:648bc6513c]) being tied together with what you (Fraser) are saying is NOT a universal Islamic precept (Ji'had).[/quote:648bc6513c]As I said there ARE two meanings but even when 'fighting Jihad' is used it is still not in the same context as what Extremists use it today. Those first Muslims who fought with Mecca were Jihad warriors but there were restrictions on what they could do and 'codes of honour' - unlike what most people now think of as Muslim holy war. Fighting Jihad was always meant to be a last resort under very special conditions and so naturaly it is the smallest meaning of the word Jihad.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]-(4:196)
Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah."[/quote:648bc6513c]Upon the pagans declaring war on al-ilahu Muhammad set about islamizing them - different Concept than Jihad.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"](4:73)
Muhammmad also said, "Know that paradise is under the shade of the swords."
[/quote:648bc6513c]As I have already uncovered the Muslim armies were having trouble getting people to fight. That would be like a Christian saying 'suffer persecution as it is a quick way to Heaven'

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"] (9:4)
Wherever you find the [b:648bc6513c]infidels[/b:648bc6513c], kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.[/quote:648bc6513c] The answer to this really does depend on the context of the events.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"][b:648bc6513c]Infidels[/b:648bc6513c], I will remind you, that are clearly identified as Jews and Christians in Sura (5:51 above).[/quote:648bc6513c]The meaning of the word Infidel is a bit different than that and could mean any unbeliever who is hostile to Islam in a certain period or place.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"](9:50)
Muhammad said: "No Umma should be killed for killing a Kafir."[/quote:648bc6513c]Again context could play a large part in this but if it is during the period of Islamizing then it would have something to do with the pagans causing trouble.

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]-Here we have a clear and egregious violation and blatant contradiction of God's holy commandment given through Moses.

(Exodus 20:13) You shall not commit murder.

This cannot be considered as referring to the conditions of war for obvious reasons. It is a civic law -and patently unjust. The Mosaic Law of the Israelites demanded that even the stranger in the land be given fair and equal justice -regardless of their religious profession.

(Exodus 23:9) Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.[/quote:648bc6513c]Are we comparing Christianity and Islam or are we arguing the difference or lack of it between modern Islamic extremism and Orthodox Islam?

[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"] (9:57)
Muhammad said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."[/quote:648bc6513c] Quiet a bit different from Jihad and only applies to Muslims who are traitors to their beliefs...


[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"]I have to say that this text (Sura 3:110) is absolutely [b:648bc6513c]NOTHING[/b:648bc6513c] like (John 14:6) which you have quoted. Christ points straight to HIMSELF and never gives [b:648bc6513c]any[/b:648bc6513c] room for the believer to puff himself up with such an extreme humanistic statement as (3:110). While any religious adherent would be right in believing their position to be correct (otherwise why practice your particular faith), no believer worth his salt would dare say that he himself is intrinsically superior to the unbeliever. Usually it is the opposite when he catches a glimpse of his own wretched sinfulness[/quote:648bc6513c]That is where Christianity and Islam differ. It does not offer any support to the current notion of Islamic extremism.


[quote:648bc6513c="SmokingFlax"] Re: "If you can come up with a stable argument that Qur'an teachs Islamic extremism then I will listen."[/quote:648bc6513c]I have listened but I need time to think over it and maybe contact more knowledgeable people than I.
 
[quote:0570b57e90="fredtgreco"]The charitable (and hence Biblical, 1 Peter 4:8) reading here would be that Fraser is attempting to assist Christians in presenting a more formidable defense against Islam.

Thank you Christopher for your retraction. Carry on.[/quote:0570b57e90]Thanks, as I tried to say somewhere above - if you said what people are saying here to a Muslim they would be so deeply insulted you would not even get the chance to share the gospel to them. Even if this discussion stays within Christian circles some Muslim can stumble over it and it creates an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding which NEVER helps the spreading of the Truth.
 
The following is written by a Muslim scholar, Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi and concerns Orthodox Islam and how it deals with Jihad, Matryrdom and Suicide... etc. The full text can be found at http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/jihad-islam-martyrdom.html

[quote:fd263acc43]JIHAD
According to some sayings of the Prophet Muhammad that are contained in the compilation called Sahih al-Bukhari, "Delivery is the 'jihad' of a woman", while "The 'jihad' of someone who has old parents is taking care of them". The military 'jihad' was not a form of "expansion of the religion by means of the sword", but a form of defense against religious persecution.

The Qur'anic verses giving permission for military jihad say:

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged. And verily God is Most powerful for their aid. [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right [for no cause] except that they say, 'Our Lord is God'. Had not God checked one people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly help those who help His cause, for verily God is Full of strength, exalted in Might". [Qur'an, "The Pilgrimage", Sura 22:39-40]

As one can see, military "jihad" is not conceived to expand a certain faith, but to defend the rights of those who are persecuted because of their religion. The verses which describe violation of religious freedom as a justification for self-defense are clear in including not only mosques, but also monasteries, churches and synagogues, among the places where God's name is frequently mentioned, and among the places that are necessary to protect, even by recourse to war.

Apart from this, the legitimate form of military "jihad" is regulated by very strict rules:

RULES FOR WAGING MILITARY "JIHAD"
1. It must be waged by a regular army which wages war against another army. Terrorist acts against civilian populations are not included in the definition of "jihad". The collection of Prophetic sayings that we have already mentioned, Sahih al-Bukhari, narrates that when the Prophet Muhammad was informed that a certain group of fighters of "jihad" had killed some women, he raised his hands and prayed by saying, "O God, be my witness that my hands are innocent of this crime".

2. The reaction in self-defense must not be exaggerated. The typical example of this is the story of Moses and the Egyptian, as narrated in the Qur'an. To defend an Israelite who was being beaten by an Egyptian, Moses killed an Egyptian. No doubt, the Israelite was a member of the oppressed people, one of those who were persecuted because of their religion and enslaved, while the Egyptian was one of the oppressors. The event could even been described as a legitimate form of "jihad", but the Qur'an does not support this opinion, and condemns Moses' reaction as exaggerated. Moses himself asks forgiveness for his excess.

The Qur'an says: "And he [Moses] entered the city at a time when its inhabitants were in a state of heedlessness; and he found therein two men fighting one of his own religion and the other of his enemies. And he who was of his party sought his help against him who was of his enemies. So Moses struck the latter with his fist, and thereby caused his death. Then Moses said, 'This is Satan's doing, he is indeed an enemy, a manifest misleader'. He said, 'My Lord, I have wronged my soul, so do Thou forgive me'. So He forgave him; for He is Most Forgiving, ever Merciful". [Qur'an, "The Story", Sura 28:15-16]

The Qur'an also says: "And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but do not exaggerate. Verily, God does not love those who exaggerate". [Qur'an, "The Cow", Sura 2:190]

3. When the former enemy is ready to stop hostilities and is looking for an opportunity for peace, Muslims must stop fighting and accept to look for a peaceful solution.

The Qur'an says: "And make ready for those who fight you whatever you can of armed force and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may frighten the enemy of God and your enemy and others besides them whom you know not, but God knows them. And whatever you spend in the way of God, it shall be paid back to you in full, and you shall not be wronged.
But if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in God. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing". [Qur'an, "The Spoils", Sura 8:60-61]

MARTYRDOM
Martyrdom in Islam is the praiseworthy condition of the one who offers his life as a witness for the Truth. "Shahid", the word that we translate in English as "martyr", etymologically means "witness", someone whose existence is a living witnessing, even after his death.

About martyrs, the Qur'an says: "Think not of those who have been slain in the cause of God, as dead. Nay, they are alive in the presence of their Lord, and are granted gifts from Him; jubilant because of that which God has given them of His bounty; and rejoicing for the sake of those who have not yet joined them from behind them, because on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve. They rejoice at the favour of God and His bounty, and at the fact that God suffers not the reward of the believers to be lost". [Qur'an, "The Imrans", Sura 3:169-170][/quote:fd263acc43]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top