Well kids, the bleeding heart, politically correct, don't spank your kids, let other religions celebrate their holidays but put a stop to Christian activities in case you insult someone LEFT is out in force again.
The latest outcry is about "Fitna: Freedom of expression or freedom to insult?"
If you haven't seen this film yet it is further down the page in this blog but to save you the trouble I will explain it.
The movie shows verses from the Koran that advocate terrorism, killing infidels, (non-believers) chopping the hands from thieves, warfare and general mayhem accompanied by pictures of what radical Muslims and terrorists have been doing this past little while.
And these assholes ask if we are doing it just to insult the Muslims.
Listen bunky, I don't see any Lutheran (Me) terrorists, or any Buddhist suicide bombers, or Baptist fathers killing their daughters because they slept with someone, or any Mormon's stoning people who leave the faith, or Jehovah's Witnesses subjugating their women, or Protestants and Catholics who wage a holy war on.................. Oh, wait a minute....... I forgot about Northern Ireland!
Oh well, five out of six ain't bad!
Back to my point.
This is not about insulting someones religion bunky.
The Muslims have brought it on themselves by the actions of the Radical Islamist and the complacency of the mainstream Muslim community.
Sure our freedoms end at the point of swinging your arms..... at someone else's nose, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, but it would be blasphemous for us to let other people and religions tell us how to live our lives.
If Islamic radicals tell us that we are going to convert to Islam no matter what they have to do, then that is a declaration of war and I'm not too concerned about who I insult!
End of story!
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label blasphemed islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blasphemed islam. Show all posts
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Iran: Death penalty for converts who leave Islam!
We just received this report from "Perspective's" Middle-East Bureau.
All the rhetoric and posturing is still there and Christianity and Islam are still at loggerheads! Only the actual fighting has died down somewhat.
I like to think this is because we are becoming more civilized, but then again, maybe I'm only deluding myself!
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
In its first session since last week's general elections, the new Iranian parliament is expected to discuss a law that will condemn to death anyone who decides to leave the Muslim faith and convert to other religions.You know, I don't think this is much of a change since the "Crusades!"
The parliament, also known as the Majlis, will debate the new law which has been presented by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Under the proposed law, anyone who is born to Muslim parents and decides to convert to another faith, will face the death penalty.
Currently converts, particularly those who have decided to leave the Muslim faith for Evangelical churches, are arrested and then released after some years of detention.
The new legislation, which has caused concern in Iran and abroad, was proposed mainly because of fears of proselytising activities by Evangelical churches particularly through the use of satellite channels.
There has also been concern over fact that many young people in Iran have abandoned Islam because they're tired of the many restrictions imposed by the faith.
According to unofficial sources, in the past five years, one million Iranians, particularly young people and women, have abandoned Islam and joined Evangelical churches.
This phenomenon has surprised even the missionaries who carry out their activities in secret in Iran.
An Evangelical priest and former Muslim in Iran told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the conversions were "interesting, enthusiastic but very dangerous".
"The high number of conversions is the reason that the government has decided to make the repression of Christians official with this new law," said the priest on condition of anonymity.
"Often we get to know about a new community that has been formed, after a lot of time, given that the people gather in homes to pray and often with rituals that they invent without any real spiritual guide," he told AKI.
"We find ourselves facing what is more than a conversion to the Christian faith," he said. "It's a mass exodus from Islam."
All the rhetoric and posturing is still there and Christianity and Islam are still at loggerheads! Only the actual fighting has died down somewhat.
I like to think this is because we are becoming more civilized, but then again, maybe I'm only deluding myself!
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Chuch of Allan - The Plain Truth About God
A serialization of the book, The Plain Truth About God.
Chapter 11. Jihad Inc.
It would be a major mistake to think, as some people do, that Islamic fundamentalists form a homogeneous group with common beliefs, objectives and a united leadership!
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even within the different groups, as with the Shiite and Sunni sects, there are disparate groups and movements. All of which are lumped together by the media as being fundamentalist.
The “fundamentals” that they go back to are an attempt to renew their religion once again by going “back to the basics.”
It is either that or watch their religion slide into secularism.
Now remember that all religions are capable of rise and fall. All cultures have their ups and downs over the course of their existence. Any religion, as well as any civilization, is always vulnerable to decadence and therefore has to be continually renewed.
One of the great strengths of Islam is that it does not have any one “official” person or institution. (Even though “unofficially” the Imam’s carry the same clout as the cardinals, or even the Pope, as they do in Christianity)
In theory every Muslim, every believer, has direct access to God and direct access to the sources of his religion.
Unfortunately, in practice they are all swayed by the hierarchy of the religion and affected by both the dogmatic and cultural forces at play.
There are many different man-made interpretations of the Holy Koran (just as in the bible), and this leads to the fact that many sayings and traditions were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet Muhammad in order to support one or more understandings of the Koran text according to the interpreters.
These understandings were constantly adjusted to fit the socio-economic situation as well as the political views of the time. As a result, they were in a constant state of flux, sometimes close to the intended message and at other times quite removed.
In spite of this, the Koran and the religious philosophy it espouses is arguably the most pristine and simple of all the major world religions with the possible exception of Baha’i.
(With the meaning that simple is less convoluted and therefore better and more to the point. As in “clear and simple”)
Where we run into a problem is that, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual copy of the Koran that can be said to have come directly from the hands of Mohammed.
The earliest written record of the Koran (and the 45 scribes who supposedly documented it) was written in the biography of Mohammed by a certain Ibn Ishaq who wrote Sirat Rasul Allah, (The life of the Prophet of God) about 100 years after the death of the prophet Mohammed!
From this point on, it gets even hazier since there is no actual record of this document as well, but rather, it is extensively quoted in an even later work by al-Tabari who lived close to 200 years after the death of Ibn Ishaq. Suddenly we have a space of 350 years (close to 1000 C.E.) that cannot be properly documented.
With this in mind we can look back to about 620 C.E. when Mohammed, (or someone like him,) started on a campaign of dominance.
Here in less than 100 years Arab tribesmen, riding on horseback, emerged out of the Arabian deserts to conquer Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and Spain.
Now the great question we have to ask here is whether the Arab armies were fuelled during their expansion by religious fever; or was the religion “spiced up” during the 350 years where it was not documented properly.
In other words, was this re-vamping of Islam the manipulations of a politically dominant group whose aim was to establish a religious justification for Arab imperialism?
Or was it based on a religion that advocated the expansion of its ideals by force?
Don’t forget, during the first 200 years of this great expansion Arab conquerors were a minority against a non-Moslem majority.
Then, once the Arabs had acquired a sizable empire—a coherent religion was necessary in order to hold that empire together.
(Note: in the long run, over the centuries, the main purpose of any religion, once it had gone beyond the “sect” stage, was to perpetuate itself and also act as a glue to hold the empire together.)
So once again, was the religion in place and acting as the fuel for Arab hegemony, or was it the glue that was manufactured “after the fact” to hold the whole empire together.
This is a question that will never be properly answered - as it is now lost in the mists of time.
However, we can draw certain inferences from it.
One of the facts that we have to consider is that while Christianity was founded on the premise of “love” for others, the main driving force behind Islam is that it was bound up in war and aggression from its very inception.
As a result, no matter how close or far from the intended message of the Koran it was, portions of it were always used to justify an Arab extremist and expansionist view.
History has now given us an almost unbroken string of militant Islamic movements from the “Assassins” of the 11th-12th century to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.
(Even if he is technically a Persian and not Arab.)
The crusades were the first catalyst that got Islam to “rally round the flag” in Middle East terms and the second was the Mongol invasion shortly after.
Arab society became full of hatred to both Eastern and Western invaders. Many lives were lost and cultures destroyed before the infidels were defeated by the religiously mobilized Islamic armies.
The early result of this hatred was the emergence of Ibn-Taymeyah as one of the first Arab extremists. He was born in 1263 C. E. during the Mongol invasion and died in jail for his extremist views in 1328 C.E.
During his lifetime, almost all of the main Islamic schools of theology (to their credit) rejected his extremist views and he was constantly at odds with the authorities, but had a great and loyal following among the masses.
This seems to have set the tone for the following centuries with constant upheaval among theologians and clergy. (Much the same as in the early Christian church)
One of the modern day results of this dissension in the religion was the establishment of Wahhabism in the mid part of the sixteenth century.
This brand of ultra-conservative Islam, which we now loosely call fundamentalism, was established by Mahammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab around 1715.
Mahammad ibn ‘Abd Al-Wahhab’s ideas spread amongst the villagers of Dar’iyya and were adopted by their chief, Mahammad ibn Su’ud.
Those who accepted his ideals, which were termed Wahhabiyya, were called Wahhabis.
Al-Wahhab was very aware of the fact that he was not a mere preacher but the leader of a movement that sought to effect a real change in society.
Like all practical social reformers, he was convinced of the necessity of power for the realization of the goals that he advocated.
Unfortunately, like so many before him, he mistakenly turned the Divine message from God “outward” to try and influence others instead of turning it “inward” to effect personal betterment as he was supposed to.
Islam makes the same mistake that Christianity and most other religions make.
That is taking the “message” of God and applying it outwardly against people who are not in sync with their own personal idea of how things should be.
Rather, we should all be turning the message inward and changing ourselves for the better.
In other words our goal is to change “ourselves,” not to “get others to do what we think is best for them!”
*Take God’s message and turn it inward to attain a state of grace.
*Turn it outward to control others and it becomes corrupted.
*Lead by example; do not use the example to lead!
The Wahhabis main practitioners were the Bedouin tribes in the deserts of what is now Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabis point of view is that anyone who does not follow their particular brand of Islam is a disbeliever and infidel.
As they increased in number, Wahhabism was firmly established by 1737 C.E.
It now forms the basis for most of the religious and political life in Saudi Arabia, and by extension of their money and influence, other areas of the Middle East.
It has slowly become the standard by which a lot of Islam is being held accountable to.
TOMORROW: The Arab Muslim
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Chapter 11. Jihad Inc.
It would be a major mistake to think, as some people do, that Islamic fundamentalists form a homogeneous group with common beliefs, objectives and a united leadership! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even within the different groups, as with the Shiite and Sunni sects, there are disparate groups and movements. All of which are lumped together by the media as being fundamentalist.
The “fundamentals” that they go back to are an attempt to renew their religion once again by going “back to the basics.”
It is either that or watch their religion slide into secularism.
Now remember that all religions are capable of rise and fall. All cultures have their ups and downs over the course of their existence. Any religion, as well as any civilization, is always vulnerable to decadence and therefore has to be continually renewed.
One of the great strengths of Islam is that it does not have any one “official” person or institution. (Even though “unofficially” the Imam’s carry the same clout as the cardinals, or even the Pope, as they do in Christianity)
In theory every Muslim, every believer, has direct access to God and direct access to the sources of his religion.
Unfortunately, in practice they are all swayed by the hierarchy of the religion and affected by both the dogmatic and cultural forces at play.
There are many different man-made interpretations of the Holy Koran (just as in the bible), and this leads to the fact that many sayings and traditions were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet Muhammad in order to support one or more understandings of the Koran text according to the interpreters.
These understandings were constantly adjusted to fit the socio-economic situation as well as the political views of the time. As a result, they were in a constant state of flux, sometimes close to the intended message and at other times quite removed.
In spite of this, the Koran and the religious philosophy it espouses is arguably the most pristine and simple of all the major world religions with the possible exception of Baha’i.
(With the meaning that simple is less convoluted and therefore better and more to the point. As in “clear and simple”)
Where we run into a problem is that, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual copy of the Koran that can be said to have come directly from the hands of Mohammed.
The earliest written record of the Koran (and the 45 scribes who supposedly documented it) was written in the biography of Mohammed by a certain Ibn Ishaq who wrote Sirat Rasul Allah, (The life of the Prophet of God) about 100 years after the death of the prophet Mohammed!
From this point on, it gets even hazier since there is no actual record of this document as well, but rather, it is extensively quoted in an even later work by al-Tabari who lived close to 200 years after the death of Ibn Ishaq. Suddenly we have a space of 350 years (close to 1000 C.E.) that cannot be properly documented.
With this in mind we can look back to about 620 C.E. when Mohammed, (or someone like him,) started on a campaign of dominance.
Here in less than 100 years Arab tribesmen, riding on horseback, emerged out of the Arabian deserts to conquer Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya and Spain.
Now the great question we have to ask here is whether the Arab armies were fuelled during their expansion by religious fever; or was the religion “spiced up” during the 350 years where it was not documented properly.
In other words, was this re-vamping of Islam the manipulations of a politically dominant group whose aim was to establish a religious justification for Arab imperialism?
Or was it based on a religion that advocated the expansion of its ideals by force?
Don’t forget, during the first 200 years of this great expansion Arab conquerors were a minority against a non-Moslem majority.
Then, once the Arabs had acquired a sizable empire—a coherent religion was necessary in order to hold that empire together.
(Note: in the long run, over the centuries, the main purpose of any religion, once it had gone beyond the “sect” stage, was to perpetuate itself and also act as a glue to hold the empire together.)
So once again, was the religion in place and acting as the fuel for Arab hegemony, or was it the glue that was manufactured “after the fact” to hold the whole empire together.
This is a question that will never be properly answered - as it is now lost in the mists of time.
However, we can draw certain inferences from it.
One of the facts that we have to consider is that while Christianity was founded on the premise of “love” for others, the main driving force behind Islam is that it was bound up in war and aggression from its very inception.
As a result, no matter how close or far from the intended message of the Koran it was, portions of it were always used to justify an Arab extremist and expansionist view.
History has now given us an almost unbroken string of militant Islamic movements from the “Assassins” of the 11th-12th century to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.
(Even if he is technically a Persian and not Arab.)
The crusades were the first catalyst that got Islam to “rally round the flag” in Middle East terms and the second was the Mongol invasion shortly after.
Arab society became full of hatred to both Eastern and Western invaders. Many lives were lost and cultures destroyed before the infidels were defeated by the religiously mobilized Islamic armies.
The early result of this hatred was the emergence of Ibn-Taymeyah as one of the first Arab extremists. He was born in 1263 C. E. during the Mongol invasion and died in jail for his extremist views in 1328 C.E.
During his lifetime, almost all of the main Islamic schools of theology (to their credit) rejected his extremist views and he was constantly at odds with the authorities, but had a great and loyal following among the masses.
This seems to have set the tone for the following centuries with constant upheaval among theologians and clergy. (Much the same as in the early Christian church)
One of the modern day results of this dissension in the religion was the establishment of Wahhabism in the mid part of the sixteenth century.
This brand of ultra-conservative Islam, which we now loosely call fundamentalism, was established by Mahammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab around 1715.
Mahammad ibn ‘Abd Al-Wahhab’s ideas spread amongst the villagers of Dar’iyya and were adopted by their chief, Mahammad ibn Su’ud.
Those who accepted his ideals, which were termed Wahhabiyya, were called Wahhabis.
Al-Wahhab was very aware of the fact that he was not a mere preacher but the leader of a movement that sought to effect a real change in society.
Like all practical social reformers, he was convinced of the necessity of power for the realization of the goals that he advocated.
Unfortunately, like so many before him, he mistakenly turned the Divine message from God “outward” to try and influence others instead of turning it “inward” to effect personal betterment as he was supposed to.
Islam makes the same mistake that Christianity and most other religions make.
That is taking the “message” of God and applying it outwardly against people who are not in sync with their own personal idea of how things should be.
Rather, we should all be turning the message inward and changing ourselves for the better.
In other words our goal is to change “ourselves,” not to “get others to do what we think is best for them!”
*Take God’s message and turn it inward to attain a state of grace.
*Turn it outward to control others and it becomes corrupted.
*Lead by example; do not use the example to lead!
The Wahhabis main practitioners were the Bedouin tribes in the deserts of what is now Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabis point of view is that anyone who does not follow their particular brand of Islam is a disbeliever and infidel.
As they increased in number, Wahhabism was firmly established by 1737 C.E.
It now forms the basis for most of the religious and political life in Saudi Arabia, and by extension of their money and influence, other areas of the Middle East.
It has slowly become the standard by which a lot of Islam is being held accountable to.
TOMORROW: The Arab Muslim
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Chuch of Allan - The Plain Truth About God
A serialization of the book, The Plain Truth About God.
Chapter 11. Jihad Inc.
After the Prophets death however, the growing population of his followers found that a great many problems of religious and community life were arising. Problems to which there was no specific guidance in the Koran!
Guidance was therefore sought in the “Traditions” as to what the Prophet had said and done. (Or, was reported to have said and done.)
This vast accumulation of genuine, partly genuine, and often quite spurious traditions was digested into the collections of Hadith, six of which are considered the canonical collections.
It is well known to Muslims that much of the Hadith material was spurious. But, for the study of Islam even those traditions, which the community invented and attributed to Muhammad, have their value!
Often as much value as those that may actually have come down from him.
One such rule is provided in the Shariah, which is in the first instance the Koran.
In the second instance comes the Hadith, or “The Traditions,” and the third is “Ijma,” which is the consensus of the community.
The fourth instance relies on Giyas, which is the application of analogical reasoning to the other three sources for the deduction of new rules.
This combination of rules starting with the Shariah combines to form a religion that is supposed to be open to revision. Yet it is structured in such a way as to give adherents a set of guidelines on the method of proper conduct.
Unfortunately, due to the very nature of Islam with the traditions and consensus of the community playing such a vital part, the stagnation of the creed is all but assured.
There is great comfort amongst the faithful in the structured environment of Islam.
It places importance in the observance of daily routine and ritual.
This, combined with the strong family and social ties (tribal) that are encouraged, makes for a religion that is both vital and dynamic in its zealousness, while at the same time fostering a strong inertia and resistance to change from outside sources.
The main obstacle to growth and development in Islam is the overwhelming sense that there is absolutely no need for change. In fact, by its very nature, Islam preaches that it is complete and fully developed as the personal word of God.
This has also been the case in the Christian church and as such we have religions that are stuck in the nineteenth century in the case of Christianity, (both Protestant and Catholic) and the twelfth century in the case of Islam.
Where we have the conflict with most Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the answer to these criticisms will always be met with the question; “Well what’s the matter with that?”
In answer to that question we have to remember that in religious terms the path to good living is directed and regulated by the Koran.
On the other hand, when we talk about Shariah law there is no uniform opinion among Muslims on how this law is to be understood or applied.
Traditional authorities, beginning in the time shortly after Muhammad, viewed holy law as the revealed will of God and subordinated politics to holy decree.
Historically however, it was politics (tribal or otherwise) that invariable shaped Islamic law and led to complex discourse on a subject that was contentious on the surface but at its base rather simple.
The religious precepts are pretty straightforward, but the task of explaining them and choosing a method for their application is left in human hands.
This means they are automatically constrained by human limitations.
(Perhaps what Islam needs is a “Reformation” along the same lines as the upheaval of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther.)
On top of this, Muslims became politically divided early in their history with the division into the Shiite and Sunni sects (see below) and that oriented their respective understandings of the law and its applications.
After Muhammad’s death, Islam also got off to a rocky start when warfare was used to spread the faith and three of the first four Caliphs died by violence.
The fourth Caliph, Ali, was a cousin of Muhammad and his followers then tore the community in two by claiming that Ali should have been the first caliph by virtue of his blood ties to Muhammad.
These people came to be known as the Shi’a or Shiite sect while the great majority of the followers of Muhammad, who claim that succession does not rely on blood ties, are known today as the Sunni.
A great many differences exist to this day between these two main sects of Islam, and the distinctions go far deeper than just who should have succeeded Muhammad.
In fact, in the interpretation of the Koran itself, there were already differences between the sects.
There were passages that briefly summarized the things a Muslim should believe. These were too brief however, to be sufficient. And they were also too bare to be satisfying.
Because of this, we find different “creedal statements” circulating amongst the communities of both the Shiite and Sunni’s, as well as amongst the Sufi. (Who are mystical branches of Islam.)
These became the subject of discussion and commentary until in time they grew into different Islamic theologies and a Muslim science of dogmatism.
One result of this was that Islam developed its heretical sects, and so part of the task was to distinguish orthodox belief and practice as opposed to various schools of heretical teaching.
This led to a condition within the faith where almost anyone could at one time or another consider a person of another sect to be a non-believer and heretic.
The similarity between this and the situation between the Catholics and Protestants is not mere coincidence but the result of the schisms that can develop between different groups of even similar beliefs!
As we said, Islam became highly divisive right from its inception when it split into the Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi sects. Add to this the fact that Islam was spread through war and conflict as opposed to the philosophy of “love thy neighbor” that was the foundation of Christianity, and we have a religion that is ripe for dissention and conflict.
On top of the divisiveness amongst the practitioners of Islam, we can see how the faith slides still further with the triumph of fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran in the 11th century.
This resulted in the triggering of major conflicts amongst the population of the region and the gradual decline of Islamic, and then by default, Arab civilization.
Now the word “fundamentalist” was originally used in a broad sense to describe the American Protestant movement of the late nineteenth century in opposition to modernist tendencies in American religious and secular life.
The term itself is derived from a series of works, “The Fundamentals,” which was published in the U.S.A. in 1909.
However, this return to the fundamentals of a religion and a rejection of secularism was soon discovered to be a worldwide phenomenon.
There are today many groups that have organized themselves in such a way as to find alternatives to secularism! There are fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Buddhists, fundamentalist Hindus and so on.
However, it’s the Muslim fundamentalists who are most in the Western news.
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Chapter 11. Jihad Inc.
After the Prophets death however, the growing population of his followers found that a great many problems of religious and community life were arising. Problems to which there was no specific guidance in the Koran! Guidance was therefore sought in the “Traditions” as to what the Prophet had said and done. (Or, was reported to have said and done.)
This vast accumulation of genuine, partly genuine, and often quite spurious traditions was digested into the collections of Hadith, six of which are considered the canonical collections.
It is well known to Muslims that much of the Hadith material was spurious. But, for the study of Islam even those traditions, which the community invented and attributed to Muhammad, have their value!
Often as much value as those that may actually have come down from him.
One such rule is provided in the Shariah, which is in the first instance the Koran.
In the second instance comes the Hadith, or “The Traditions,” and the third is “Ijma,” which is the consensus of the community.
The fourth instance relies on Giyas, which is the application of analogical reasoning to the other three sources for the deduction of new rules.
This combination of rules starting with the Shariah combines to form a religion that is supposed to be open to revision. Yet it is structured in such a way as to give adherents a set of guidelines on the method of proper conduct.
Unfortunately, due to the very nature of Islam with the traditions and consensus of the community playing such a vital part, the stagnation of the creed is all but assured.
There is great comfort amongst the faithful in the structured environment of Islam.
It places importance in the observance of daily routine and ritual.
This, combined with the strong family and social ties (tribal) that are encouraged, makes for a religion that is both vital and dynamic in its zealousness, while at the same time fostering a strong inertia and resistance to change from outside sources.
The main obstacle to growth and development in Islam is the overwhelming sense that there is absolutely no need for change. In fact, by its very nature, Islam preaches that it is complete and fully developed as the personal word of God.
This has also been the case in the Christian church and as such we have religions that are stuck in the nineteenth century in the case of Christianity, (both Protestant and Catholic) and the twelfth century in the case of Islam.
Where we have the conflict with most Christian and Muslim fundamentalists is that the answer to these criticisms will always be met with the question; “Well what’s the matter with that?”
In answer to that question we have to remember that in religious terms the path to good living is directed and regulated by the Koran.
On the other hand, when we talk about Shariah law there is no uniform opinion among Muslims on how this law is to be understood or applied.
Traditional authorities, beginning in the time shortly after Muhammad, viewed holy law as the revealed will of God and subordinated politics to holy decree.
Historically however, it was politics (tribal or otherwise) that invariable shaped Islamic law and led to complex discourse on a subject that was contentious on the surface but at its base rather simple.
The religious precepts are pretty straightforward, but the task of explaining them and choosing a method for their application is left in human hands.
This means they are automatically constrained by human limitations.
(Perhaps what Islam needs is a “Reformation” along the same lines as the upheaval of the Catholic Church by Martin Luther.)
On top of this, Muslims became politically divided early in their history with the division into the Shiite and Sunni sects (see below) and that oriented their respective understandings of the law and its applications.
After Muhammad’s death, Islam also got off to a rocky start when warfare was used to spread the faith and three of the first four Caliphs died by violence.
The fourth Caliph, Ali, was a cousin of Muhammad and his followers then tore the community in two by claiming that Ali should have been the first caliph by virtue of his blood ties to Muhammad.
These people came to be known as the Shi’a or Shiite sect while the great majority of the followers of Muhammad, who claim that succession does not rely on blood ties, are known today as the Sunni.
A great many differences exist to this day between these two main sects of Islam, and the distinctions go far deeper than just who should have succeeded Muhammad.
In fact, in the interpretation of the Koran itself, there were already differences between the sects.
There were passages that briefly summarized the things a Muslim should believe. These were too brief however, to be sufficient. And they were also too bare to be satisfying.
Because of this, we find different “creedal statements” circulating amongst the communities of both the Shiite and Sunni’s, as well as amongst the Sufi. (Who are mystical branches of Islam.)
These became the subject of discussion and commentary until in time they grew into different Islamic theologies and a Muslim science of dogmatism.
One result of this was that Islam developed its heretical sects, and so part of the task was to distinguish orthodox belief and practice as opposed to various schools of heretical teaching.
This led to a condition within the faith where almost anyone could at one time or another consider a person of another sect to be a non-believer and heretic.
The similarity between this and the situation between the Catholics and Protestants is not mere coincidence but the result of the schisms that can develop between different groups of even similar beliefs!
As we said, Islam became highly divisive right from its inception when it split into the Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi sects. Add to this the fact that Islam was spread through war and conflict as opposed to the philosophy of “love thy neighbor” that was the foundation of Christianity, and we have a religion that is ripe for dissention and conflict.
On top of the divisiveness amongst the practitioners of Islam, we can see how the faith slides still further with the triumph of fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran in the 11th century.
This resulted in the triggering of major conflicts amongst the population of the region and the gradual decline of Islamic, and then by default, Arab civilization.
Now the word “fundamentalist” was originally used in a broad sense to describe the American Protestant movement of the late nineteenth century in opposition to modernist tendencies in American religious and secular life.
The term itself is derived from a series of works, “The Fundamentals,” which was published in the U.S.A. in 1909.
However, this return to the fundamentals of a religion and a rejection of secularism was soon discovered to be a worldwide phenomenon.
There are today many groups that have organized themselves in such a way as to find alternatives to secularism! There are fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Buddhists, fundamentalist Hindus and so on.
However, it’s the Muslim fundamentalists who are most in the Western news.
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com
Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
It's about time!
A leading Muslim organisation today condemned the barbarity of the failed car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow as it called on its faithful to provide “all the necessary support” to prevent terrorism.
Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), said it was the “Islamic duty” not only to utterly and totally condemn such actions, but to provide all the support necessary to prevent such atrocities from taking place in the future.
(Islam / Islamism - Islamism is a totalitarian ideology adhered to by Muslim extremists, e.g. the Taliban, Wahhabis, Hamas and Osama bin Laden. It is considered to be a distortion of Islam. Many Islamists engage in terrorism in pursuit of their goals. Adherents of Islam are called “Muslims.” The term Ärab” describes an ethnic or cultural identity. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. The terms are not interchangeable.)
Dr Abdul Bari said in his statement that the police and security services had the “enormous responsibility” for trying to ensure the safety of all Britons.
As such, they deserve the fullest support and cooperation of “each and every sector of our society” including all Muslims, he added.
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at www.God-101.com
Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), said it was the “Islamic duty” not only to utterly and totally condemn such actions, but to provide all the support necessary to prevent such atrocities from taking place in the future.“The events of the past few days have been very disturbing and challenging ones for all of us,” he told a news conference at the MCB offices in east London.
“At the very outset we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all the police officers and security experts who were tasked with removing the threat from the explosive devices in London and Glasgow."
(Islam / Islamism - Islamism is a totalitarian ideology adhered to by Muslim extremists, e.g. the Taliban, Wahhabis, Hamas and Osama bin Laden. It is considered to be a distortion of Islam. Many Islamists engage in terrorism in pursuit of their goals. Adherents of Islam are called “Muslims.” The term Ärab” describes an ethnic or cultural identity. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. The terms are not interchangeable.)
“It looks sadly as if the terror threat currently facing our country will be with us for some time to come. So let us be absolutely clear about this, that those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of all of us."
“There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity."
“Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of all, Muslims and non Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the UK.”
Dr Abdul Bari said in his statement that the police and security services had the “enormous responsibility” for trying to ensure the safety of all Britons.
As such, they deserve the fullest support and cooperation of “each and every sector of our society” including all Muslims, he added.
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at www.God-101.com
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are!
In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?
GUEST POST by Irshad Manji. (Times Online)
A Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, Irshad Manji is creator of the new documentary Faith Without Fear and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com
GUEST POST by Irshad Manji. (Times Online)
Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday.
There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God.
According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business.
But looking around my neighbourhood, I noticed that most of the new business signs featured Asian languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Punjabi and plenty of Urdu. Not Hebrew. Urdu, which is spoken throughout Pakistan.
That reality check made me ask: What if my religious school is not educating me? What if it is indoctrinating me?
I am reminded of this question thanks to the news that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and ten other works of fiction, will be knighted by the Queen of England.
On Monday, Pakistan’s religious affairs minister said that in light of how Rushdie has blasphemed Islam with provocative literature, it is understandable why angry Muslims would commit suicide bombings over his knighthood.
Members of Parliament, as well as the Pakistani government, amplified the condemnation of Britain, feeding cries of offense to Muslim sensibilities from Europe to Asia.
As a Muslim, you better believe I am offended – by these absurd reactions.
I am offended that it is not the first time honours from the West have met with vitriol and violence.
In 1979, Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam became the first Muslim to win the Nobel Prize in science. He began his acceptance speech with a verse from the Quran.
Salam’s country ought to have celebrated him.
Instead, rioters tried to prevent him from re-entering the country. Parliament even declared him a “non-Muslim” because he belonged to a religious minority.
His name continues to be controversial, invoked by state authorities in hushed tones.
I am offended that every year, there are more women killed in Pakistan for allegedly violating their family’s honour than there are detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Muslims have rightly denounced the mistreatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
But where is our outrage over the murder of many more Muslims at the hands of our own?
I am offended that in April, mullahs at an extreme mosque in Pakistan issued a fatwa against hugging.
The country’s female tourism minister had embraced – or, depending on the account you follow, accepted a congratulatory pat from – her skydiving instructor after she successfully jumped in a French fundraiser for the victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake.
Clerics announced her act of touching another man to be “a great sin.” They demanded she be fired.
I am offended by their fatwa proclaiming that women should stay at home and remain covered at all times.
I am offended that they have bullied music store owners and video vendors into closing shop.
I am offended that the government tiptoes around their craziness because these clerics threaten suicide attacks if confronted.
I am offended that on Sunday, at least 35 Muslims in Kabul were blown to bits by other Muslims and on Tuesday, 87 more in Baghdad by Islamic “insurgents”, with no official statement from Pakistan to deplore these assaults on fellow believers.
I am offended that amid the internecine carnage, a professed atheist named Salman Rushdie tops the to-do list.
Above all, I am offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God’s self-appointed ambassadors.
We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent.
In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?
I am not saying that standing up to intimidation is easy.
This past spring, the Muslim world made it that much more difficult. A 56-member council of Islamic countries pushed the UN Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution against the “defamation of religion”. Pakistan led the charge.
Focused on Islam rather than on faith in general, the resolution allows repressive regimes to squelch freedom of conscience further – and to do so in the guise of international law.
On occasion, though, the people of Pakistan show that they do not have to be muzzled by clerics and politicians.
Last year, civil society groups vocally challenged a set of anti-female laws, three decades old and supposedly based on the Quran.
Their religiously respectful approach prompted even mullahs to hint that these laws are man-made, not God-given.
This month, too, Pakistanis forced their government to lift restrictions on the press.
No wonder my own book, translated into Urdu and posted on my website, is being downloaded in droves.
Religious authorities will not let it be sold in the markets. But they cannot stop Pakistanis – or other Muslims – from satiating a genuine hunger for ideas.
In that spirit, it is high time to “ban” hypocrisy under the banner of Islam.
Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are!
After all, the very first bounty on Rushdie's head was worth £1 million. It increased to £1.25 million; then higher.
The chief benefactor, Iran's government, claimed to have profitably invested the principal. Hence the rising value of the reward.
Looks like Jews are not the only people handy at business.
A Senior Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, Irshad Manji is creator of the new documentary Faith Without Fear and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change
Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)