Obama: 'Islam Can Be Compatible With the Modern World'
Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:15AM At the CNN’s Faith in Public Life’s Compassion Forum, Barack Obama was asked about his understanding of Islam and his experience with it:
BROWN: Senator, you are a Christian, but as a child you had more exposure to Islam than probably most Americans ever will. How did that shape you?
OBAMA: Well, I lived in Indonesia for four-and-a-half years when I was a child. And, actually, ironically, the first school I went to in Indonesia was a Catholic school. So, you know, myself and Senator Bob Casey, who’s sitting here, we had pretty similar experiences probably, in part, of at least our elementary school.
I then attended a public school, but the majority of the country was Muslim. And the brand of Islam that was being practiced in Indonesia at the time was a very tolerant Islam. The country itself was explicitly secular in its constitution.
And so you didn’t have the oppressive state that was trying to impose people’s religious beliefs. And Christians and people of other faiths lived very comfortably there. And women were working, and out, and were not wearing the traditional coverings that we see in the Middle East.
And so what it taught me, and what it still teaches me, as I think about foreign policy now, is that Islam can be compatible with the modern world.
It can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world.
And so I am always careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can and that’s something that I think we always have to remember as opposed to assuming a clash of civilizations that sometimes are overheated rhetoric that politically is talked about.
Obama is both right and wrong. Right in that Islam can be compatible with the modern world, right that we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad brush and right that the majority of Muslims are good people trying tot raise their families with similar concerns as we do.
Obama is wrong that there isn’t a “clash of civilizations” going on, particularly within Islam itself let alone between apostates in the religion (like Osama bin Laden and other extremists) and westernized countries in the world. With this philosophy, Obama would have a tough time as president explaining why al-Qaeda attacks so many countries all over the world. This was an uninformed attempt at a cheap shot at the Bush administration by Obama.
Obama is also wrong to hold up Indonesia as the example of a good Muslim country and implying “separation of church and state” has something to do with it. Muslims don’t believe in nor understand the concept of separation of church and state because in their eyes religions is so important it touches every bit of public and private life.
Obama is also wrong to make a point of Muslim women not wearing head coverings as a sign of “good, tolerant” Islam. The countries in which it is a mandatory accessory, there is a “clash of civilizations” but it is optional in many countries and completely tradition. Jewish women also wore such coverings for centuries and both Jewish and Christian women often cover their heads as a sign of modesty, humility and reverence.
Now if only Obama would show some solidarity with our Iraqi brothers and sisters.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1760494
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (37)
Substitute the word "Judaism" for the word "Islam" and you'll hear how a lot of you right wingers sound.
The tradition of head covering comes from the Bible btw. Mary always covered her head/hair.
I don't think that islam and christianity could ever be "peaceful" together. To me personally, both faiths are too much like chalk and cheese and really why would you want anything to do with islam in the first place?
Mudkitty: Please provide chapter and verse about Mary and head covering. I think you have iconography in mind, not the Bible.
My dear ol'Granny wore a headscarf when she went out in public. One of her most treasured was the silk headscarf with an intaglio rose upon it that I made for her.
She did not wear a scarf for religious reasons, though she was religious; or cultural reasons, though she was from old Europe; or reasons of rain or shine, though she dwelt in a land of heat and cold. She wore the scarves so her floor length hair wouldn't be blown about by the breeze and be needlessly dirtied by the dust and grime carried on that breeze, thus, requiring more frequent washing.
Oftimes, it is the simplest of answers, Occam's Razor (oh, my! Someone else recently referenced the razor's edge, but who? Hmmmm.), lex parsimoniae, that is the best answer. It's easier to wear a scarf than to wash all that hair everyday.
well said about supporting muslims in Iraq.
Some "right wingers" do have a hard time accepting that Muslims aren't all bad, but if you look at the Iraqis we feature in our blogs for cooperating with Coalition Forces and who walk the streets with GEN Petraeus it really shoudln't be that great of a struggle.
I don't endorse Islamic theology at all by any means and seeing that Muslims can co-exist with Christians isn't an endorsement of Islam: it's an admisison that we NEED to get along. We need to learn to live together and if we live in a time in which Islam is changing and catching up (to some degree) with the evolution of Judaism (modernizing without changing theological tenets) I say we should support the change. Enourage it. Want it.
Mary was a Jew, and Jewish woman always covered their heads in those days. Many still do. It's not just biblical, the admonition to cover their heads is plainly historical.
Johnny, mudkitty said this in the 10 top books entry:
But, just ask the particular commenter specifically about anything in the Bible, and the answer one will get is so jumbled and just plain wrong that it will be clear that not even the first verse of the first chapter has been read. I've had essentially the same arguement before on this subject and others. The particular commenter retains little and understands less. It's adequate for a donut shop, I suppose.
"Some "right wingers" do have a hard time accepting that Muslims aren't all bad..." I know many of them. I asked about it and found that for the most part, no one actually believe all Muslims are all bad.
One, whose job is to implode buildings, explained it's like handling old dynamite. It's best to assume all dynamite sticks will explode unexpectedly and treat them accordingly until the true status is determined. And even then don't play games with them.
As long as the religion endorses the entirety of the Koran, including the parts that direct Muslims to kill me, I will not be able to trust Muslims completely. My Muslim neighbor agrees with me. She is a cousin of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
if people will remember up until a few years ago, Catholcism had women wear headwear to mass every Sunday. now whether it was mandatory or just traditional, that i can't say. and men were to take their hats off if wearing one.
so, while i hate to admit it i must take the side of mudkitty on this issue of headwear for women. the only thing i might argue is whether or not it is biblical.
A few years ago? Griper, not in my lifetime! I was born in 1967, which was post Vatican II by a couple of years, and most women never wear them and I have no memory from my childhood. Even pre-Vatican II women didn't "have" to wear a head covering. I grew up in a very strict Catholic Polish family and don't remember my grandmother wearing one, either grandmother.
mud said that "The tradition of head covering comes from the Bible btw. Mary always covered her head/hair." It came from culture, not the Bible, although it obviously cannot pre-date the Bible since scripture is the oldest record of human history. I don't even know what her point is but there is no mandate to wear heardcoverings. To say it "comes from the Bible" doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Thank you Giper - and I might add that my mother has an incredible collection of lace Catholic mantillias, which she has entrusted to me, and her trust is well placed.
The modesty admonition in the bible, and Jewish tradition, is the source of head covering, shrouding, and ultimately burkas.
And Red, as I've stated many times, I'm not here to do your bible homework for you. It's not my fault you profess ignorance.
I don't mean to make an issue of it but Johnny asked you for a citation. If you had read the Bible cover to cover as you've claimed and are so well versed in scripture this would be easy for you, mudkitty.
And you're lifting my words as your proof. In a previous entry I said something VERY similar to "Mary always covered her head/hair" and "The modesty admonition in the bible, and Jewish tradition, is the source of head covering, shrouding, and ultimately burkas". You simply lifted my comments and used them as your own. Otherwise you would have preceeded Mary and talked about, I don't know, Sarai or Ruth or the Queen Mother of the house of David.
Obviously you're not here to do anyone's "bible homework" for them since you can't even do your own!
Don't hijack blog threads and make them about yourself, okay?
"And Red, as I've stated many times, I'm not here to do your bible homework for you. It's not my fault you profess ignorance."
Give it up, mudflap. You have yet to answer my question about the Constitution asked of you many months ago. Where in the Constitution, a copy of which you claim to carry with at all times, is it stated that America is a democracy? You haven't because you can't; you've likely not read the Constution; you likely do not carry or even own a copy of the Constitution. Likewise the Bible. Your much vaunted didacticism has been a major failing.
Amy has exactly pegged your MO. You've outed yourself again.
However, the Bible does have this:
1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (KJV)
3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
I offer this only as evidence that the Bible does have something to say on the subject. What it means in the cultural milieu of the time and the understanding of "covering" is currently beyond me as I haven't researched or pondered this passage. There are parts (7-9) of this passage for which there would be modern counter-arguements based upon the general changes in societies over the centuries.
"Obama is both right and wrong. Right in that Islam can be compatible with the modern world, right that we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad brush and right that the majority of Muslims are good people trying tot raise their families with similar concerns as we do."
OK Amy, this is where I'm going to disagree with you. I know yours and Johnny's background, but I'd submit that there are no 'Moderate Muslims', only non-practicing Muslims.
I have posted several passages from the Qur'an at http://gawfer2001.blogspot.com/2008/03/fitna.html
that clearly indicates a hostile and aggressive nature toward non Muslims; specifically Christians and Jews. Furthermore, it is worth noting here that the words 'fight' and 'kill' appear more frequently in the Qur'an than the word 'pray’, and the word ‘love’ is never mentioned. That is certainly curious for a ‘holy book’.
The intent of Islam is to make the 'WORLD' one religion, either by attrition or by force. That intent alone makes it incompatible with any other religion.
And just this last Friday, we see another example of there intent:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd9_1208096462
“On Hamas' Al-Aqsa television this past Friday, April 11, Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal told the faithful "We will conquer Rome, and from there continue to conquer the two Americas and Eastern Europe."
One might call this guy a ‘radical’, but in reality, he is living what is written in his book.
I think you've all pretty much proved my point. Shrouding, and head covering is a biblical admonition. (Special thanks to Red.)
Does anyone deny that?
I'm familiar enough with the bible. So if you guys claim to be, then why do I have to provide links for you bible experts?
*****
Red, old boy - America is not a democracy - I never said that - America is a continent (or rather, two continents - north and south.) What I said was that the United States form of government is a representative democracy. It's really very simple.
Have any of you ever taken a civics class? Just askin.
Indigo,
I would stress Muslims are dying by the thousand , victims of our enemies who use Islam as a means to empower and legitimize themselves.
gawfer wrote:
I do not get this line of thinking where we must validate the Qtubist Islamic worldview as the correct one, true to Islam, and reject the peaceful and the modernized Muslims as the apostates. Well, I do get it; I just don't see how reinforcing that point of view is helpful to the GWOT.
It is insulting, especially as an outsider, to tell anyone how to think and feel about his religion; maybe the outsider does know the Bible or the Koran better than the practitioner himself knows and understands his religion, its history, its directives. But I think practitioners should be allowed to define who and what they practice. They define the religion, not the other way around. So if you have Muslims who read from the Koran, and consider themselves devout followers of Islam, as Dr. Zudhi Jasser surely does, why argue the issue? Why marginalize and alienate and insult him, by saying, "Pfft...you're the apostate; you don't understand true Islam". He more than understands the history and violence within its pages; and as in passages in the Old Testament, as a practitioner of a faith, you interpret the pages according to your values. And Dr. Jasser is one modernized Muslim whose values are deeply American and deeply religious. He should be embraced, and al-Qaeda and those of likemind, rejected as the apostates. Al Qaeda, itself, really is rejected by many in the Muslim world as an aberration. And yet we armchair scholars outside of the Muslim faith have the arrogance to insist, "No, you're not a true Muslim because your holy Koran says this, the Hadith says that." It's ridiculous. I'm not a Christian, yet I don't go around telling Christians of varying churches that are branches of the Christian faith, "Oh, you're not a true Christian, because your King James version of the Bible says this and that, forbids you this and that, insists you do this and that to be a good Christian, etc."
At this stage in the post-9/11 era, you as well as anyone, gawfer, needn't remind Amy or any right-winger of all the horrible, violence-enabling passages written within the Koran. We've all been there, read that. We've steeped ourselves in JihadWatch and every Barnes & Noble bestseller that warns us of the dangers of Islam. We know all this.
Rather than paint the whole of Islam with a broad brush, why not exercise some of that Christian sensibility and tolerance, and use surgical precision in pinpointing who our enemies are? Rather than lash out at a "whole group of people"? Many Muslims have lost their lives, fighting the same radicals (the ones who you want to label as "the normal" and "moderates") who we should be fighting against. To say, "Oh well, these Muslims the radicals are killing aren't true Muslims...otherwise al Qaeda would not be slaughtering them in Iraq", just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, from even a strategic, propagandistic standpoint in fighting this war on the "winning hearts and minds" level.
If our language- what we say about Islam and Muslims- confirms and validates al Qaeda's attempts at convincing other Muslims that the West is at war with Islam, and that we are persecuting Muslims all over the world, then we fall right into the propaganda of the Islamists and are nothing more than useful idiots to those who want to plunge the Muslim world into a clash of civilizations, and bring about a new era of a super-caliphate.
I know Muslims who are devout and who are good, solid citizens. I reject the notion that they are "out to get me", anymore than Christians would probably love to proselytize making "the world, one religion". Of course, what you mean is "submit or die". But that is the caricature and the prejudiced view of what a real Muslim must believe.
mudkitty,
i may have been on your side in the case of head coverings but i will oppose you every time you ask for proof of what others say or tell them you are not here to do their homework. they are not here to do your homework either. and it is hypocritical of you to demand it or even ask it of them.
mudkitty,
"Have any of you ever taken a civics class? Just askin."
have you ever even taken a class in the use of logic and reasoning? Just askin.
Indigo, I can gaurantee mud didn't know any of those citations. I find her comments completely irrelevent so to you I'll mention this, that the custom evolved over time probably in early Israel for religious and practical reasons. Today in the Middle East full clothing is worn in the heat of summer to protect the skin from the heat. Certainly when Moses and the Israelists were wandering through the desert they were covered.
I made the distinction in another thread about Mary (although it predates Jesus' mother) wearing covering because many ridicule the clothing Muslim women wear but never say a word of criticism against the way Jewish women dressed. It seemed hypocritical.
Gawfer, I don't have time right now but I'll address this later: Johnny would argue that "moderate Muslims" is a bad term. When you think of a moderate Republican it usually connotes someone straying from the tenets or platform of the party. The same is true of Muslims. They are either Muslims or not.
Again, for a non-Muslim to quote the Koran is really not productive. I'll pull some verses from the Torah later and you can see the similarity between the Koran and Torah in terms of its disturbing nature. Sexual relationships that are inappropriate to us today, stoning rebellious children and adulterers are all part of the commands of God in the old testament. We have to use different eyes when interpreting and frankly the Koran is too complicated for non-Muslims to comment about.
I would also point out that there distrubing and hard to grasp features of Christianity: every disciple is demanded to take up a cross in the example of Jesus. In John 6 talks about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ...Jesus lost most of his followers because the comments He made were so disturbing and if a non-Christian wanted to they'd have a case to make for Christ condoning cannibalism.
We also share a similarity with Judaism and Islam: the coming of a Messiah. We think it's weird, the coming of the Mahdi and the 12th Imam, but how much weirder is it than the Jews waiting for a Messiah or a dead man to return to earth in Christian doctrine?
"Indigo, I can gaurantee mud didn't know any of those citations."
Thanks, Amy. I have over 200 comments on my blog from mudflap. I know very well she has no idea what she's talking about. When caught she will change the subject, change the terms of the arguement, and/or come up with some other lamebrain objection to sanity.
I eventually had to ban her when she became abusive to me and my guests. She even got abusive in private e-mails. Yes, I know who she really is - real name, city of residence, city of employ, profession, accomplishments, and why she is no longer a Christian. I know much about her. I even know the meaning of her 'mudkitty' moniker.
Your admonition, Amy, to mudflap not to hijack your page is for naught. It is what she does and becoming abusive is also what she does. Mudflap has been banned from many blogs all for the same reasons. I admire your patience, or greed; she does tend to drive the comment numbers.
I aso know her to be a delightful and engaging individual when she is not off on an insane rant. I know her to be kind and caring and a lover of pandas and children. I know her to be creative animator with a popular animated Christmas story on video as well as an accomplshed musician. And much, much more.
If it weren't for the arrogance of ignorance backed by personal abuse , I would be happy to call her friend. Some things are a deal breaker. I violated my own rule to avoid responding to mudflap's inanity and shan't do it again.
I knew I was gonna take some heat for that comment-
WS said:
"I know Muslims who are devout and who are good, solid citizens. I reject the notion that they are "out to get me", anymore than Christians would probably love to proselytize making "the world, one religion". Of course, what you mean is "submit or die". But that is the caricature and the prejudiced view of what a real Muslim must believe."
And there in lies the rub. You compare Islam to Christianity, and all of a sudden, things don't look so bad. Let me ask you this:
When was the last time a radical Christian strapped a bomb to himself or a mentally retarded woman and blew up fifty or so innocent people in the celebration of his religion of death?
One cannot compare an ideology that worships death with an ideology that worships life.
In John 10:10 Christ said "...The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."
Get it? Christianity and Islam are polar opposites.
WS said:
"At this stage in the post-9/11 era, you as well as anyone, gawfer, needn't remind Amy or any right-winger of all the horrible, violence-enabling passages written within the Koran. We've all been there, read that. We've steeped ourselves in JihadWatch and every Barnes & Noble bestseller that warns us of the dangers of Islam. We know all this."
And apparently, because you have minimalized 9/11, you have forgotten the horror of a death cult coming to town.
Amy said:
"Again, for a non-Muslim to quote the Koran is really not productive."
Amy, I took great care to quote the Qur'an 'in context' and to not distort the thought and intent of the passage. I understand how easy it can be to take something out of context and twist it to suit one’s ideology.
I also understand the history of Islam. I know that Mohammad studied early Christian texts as well as the Torah prior to penning the Qur'an. That is evident by the comparisons between the Qur'an and the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts of the bible. But you'll notice a departure from the bible to accommodate a certain belief structure that Mohammad took when he wrote his text. (examples available upon request).
I am not saying or implying that every Muslim is a terrorist. And wordsmith, I’m proud that you know Muslims. So do I, and in fact, one of my friends and coworkers is a Muslim from turkey; I would like to point out however, that just about every terrorist we have seen has been a Muslim.
Again, am I the only one that sees the problem with the words 'fight' and 'kill' appearing more frequently in the Qur'an than the word 'pray’, and the word ‘love’ never being mentioned? That fact alone would indicate to me that Islam is a heavy handed religion that is willing to force people to comply, and the passages I quoted on my blog would support that conclusion.
Griper - the simple answer is "yes." "Of course" would be another answer.
Red - excuses, excuses. Some friend you are, or would be. You can't even tolerate disagreement. However, I will never reveal your secrets, however much you pretend to write me off. Please do not publish my address, or phone number, or private email address. Other than that, I have no secrets.
Amy - my moniker is because I'm a gardener, and a cat person - also my husband is a fan of a 1950's baseball player nick-named mudcat, and that is his online handle, so I thought it fitting to become mudkitty. Mudcat, and Mudkitty, get it? (It's so romantic.) Oooooh big secret.
Also, I wouldn't consider myself an animator, since I don't draw very well, but I AM an artist recruiter, and art department coordinator. And much, much more.
Another thing Red is right about is that I am a delightful and engaging individual. And modest too.
I know no muslims in my daily walk in life. If I did I would never allow a discussion to proceed where it is presumed that the words and thoughts generated from the Qu'ran are from the Creator of the universe. When after I have responded to a cockeyed muslim who said something like,
"Allah blesses and honors the female who covers her head, and blesses and honors the righteous parents who mutilate their daughters genitals."
with,
"You're out of your mind, pal."
If this person wished to further a discussion of the authenticity of the Qu'ran being inspired from the mind of the Creator, in due time I would cordially and intelligently respond and humiliate said muslim thoughts and arguments for such an asinine statement and belief. I would of course sugar and spice my words to this person, 'cause I want to have a long conversation, and I am basically a nice, pleasant guy ..., or so I like to think.
In the future there will be public platforms where the notion of Islamist legitimacy is presented and discussed. At the present time there are none. The best minds I've found to counter the silly Islamist arguments can be found by the regular guys at Jihad Watch.
Lol...I wasn't trying to light you up; but, really, it's usually I who usually have to stop, drop, and roll when this topic comes up.
I don't equate Islam and Christianity to be on the same moral plane. That is my own personal opinion.
My point is, the majority of Muslims aren't going to hold the point of a sword to your throat, telling you to submit to Islam, or die.
You can find a lot of what I consider nonsense in religious text; or interpret passages as such. And certainly there is much in the Koran you can find fault with, speaking as a non-Muslim.
But I reject the notion that because the Koran is cherry-picked of its most alarming passages, that this will define what a true Muslim is.
Never. And you are making a false comparison, based upon a faulty interpretation of what I am arguing, here.
Many Muslims are horrified by homicide bombers as much as you and I are. But the ones who get the loudest attention, like anti-war demonstrators and the clowns at Code Pink, are the cheerleaders of Hamas, al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist terror organizations. But these groups do not define all of Islam. There is no consensus on the fundamentalist wahhabi, salafist ideology.
The fact that Sunni tribes rejected the Taliban-like harshness and living conditions of al Qaeda and called al Qaeda "not true Muslims", should tell you that not even all fundamentalists are cut of the same cloth.
I agree. You and I are really on a similar page. But whereas you seem to want to use a blunt instrument, I want to take a surgical knife to the problem, and not piss off 1.5 billion Muslims who are not your enemy. I don't mind pissing on and pissing off the 10% of them who probably are our enemies.
I have no love for Islam.
But perhaps you do want to make this into a religious war? The entire Islamic world isn't at war with us. But perhaps 10% are. And they seek to convince the other 90% that the west is at war with them. Are persecuting and humiliating them. Do you seek to be played like a violin?
How have I minimized the event of 9/11? You're treading on serious turf here, and it could get volatile. I don't piss off easily with those I have a disagreement with; so I'll just let you know that I was personally affected by what happened that day.
If you're going to disagree with me, I'd prefer you at least have clarity on my reasoning, and not dismiss me with arguments better suited to Muslim apologists and terrorist-enablers.
And I got that sense, which is why, I hope, I referred in my sentences to putting forth arguments toward addressing those in general who think a certain way, and not to you specifically. But when you write something like,
It's a bit hard to be certain that you also think this:
And it is Muslim terrorists that I am all for fighting against. And Muslim terrorists are being recruited amongst those who don't fit the "Middle Eastern" profile and physical appearance. We must be on guard against all who embrace the "radical" (put it in quotations, just for you) strain of Islam.
Not at all. Like I said, on a "rightwing" blog, I think most of us have educated ourselves on Robert Spencer and company, regarding the looming dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamic terror.
I feel that I've "moved to the next level" in understanding, beyond the "eff Islam" mentality that seems to dominate some of the rightwing blogs, making them come across not as beacons of illumination for having armchair studied Islamic scriptures, but as hateful bigots, out to condemn an entire religious group. And they find justification in it, simply because they read all about the crazy things Islamic crazies are doing out there in the world, compounded by the ones who want to harm us; meanwhile, ignoring the many Muslims who just want to go about their business and aren't out to dhimmify anyone. In a sense, some of us are becoming that which we hate; as a means of fighting back, we are lashing out. Half the country (and the world) are asleep, refusing to name the enemy; refusing to acknowledge the Islamist problem in the name of political correctness and multiculturalistic diversity-loving nonsense; meanwhile, we're working ourselves up, running to the other extreme, warning of the dangers, but in the process, are also lumping Muhammad Ali in there by crapping on his religion.
Ok, it may deserve to be crapped on. And a sign of a good, 21st century, mature religion secure in its own skin, might be in its ability to withstand criticism; and to self-criticize.
After all, Bill Maher is able to say what he will about the Pope and Catholicism without fear for his life against a Catholic homicide bomber or fatwa against him from the Vatican; but at the same time, is it right to bo so disrespectful and crude?
How does that win "hearts and minds"?
Jihad Watch is good for what it's worth and I respect Robert Spencer, but he shouldn't be dissecting Islmaic theology and interpreting the Koran for non-Muslims. As I said above, many verses in both the old and the new testaments are indefensable to many people but make perfect contextual and theological sense to Christians, from St. Paul saying slaves should not seek their freedom, St. Peter saying women need to submit to their husbands and Jesus saying if anyone wants eternal life they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Old Testament passages are even more troubling. Lot, whom St. Paul writes as being a righteous man, had sex with his two daughters (their initiative, but he didn't exactly stop it). Lot also offered up his daughters to a crowd of angry homosexuals who wanted sex with Lot's guests... there are commands to stone adulterers, those rebellious to their parents... a man was killed when he tried to save the Arc of the Covenant from falling.. how fair is that? His intentions were good but God commanded that no one touch it.
So each religion needs to interpret their own theology and history for themselves. To do otherwise is presumptious.
So pulling out quotes from the Quran is a poor way to analyze just as if anyone judged me or interpreted me by my journal or philosophies would be unbalanced.
The reality is that we have an unprecedented opportunity to help usher in a form of world peace (it can never be fully achieved as long as there is free will within every person) and yet many continue to demonize and turn away the Muslims who are rejecting old violent traditions or the actions of extreme or ignorant/uneducated members of the religion.
Yet these same people who say Muslims can ever change or are not to be trusted are the same ones who praise heroic actions of an Iraqi soldier who throws himself on a suicide bomber to save US troops or puts himself in the line of fire to protect a family in a village he doesn't even know. And his religion is Islam. It is therefore a hypocritical effort to define Islam only by the Quran and actions of terrorists or the uneducated while neglecting the actions of the millions of good Muslims around the world.
WS, I find it easier to agree with you now, and please understand my position:
I am not saying Muslims are bad relative to any other human being. What I am saying is the text in which they are motivated by is full of hate filled messages that can motivate them to do horrific acts of violence and seek dominance.
Though there is good that can come from Muslims (Amy has cited courageous and heroic acts recently performed by Iraqis), I’d submit that even a little poison will still kill you eventually.
Now, to argue my point of world domination, we can look at the current events in England:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unavoidable',+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do
"The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.
Lord George Carey, Dr Williams' predecessor, criticised his comments on sharia law and said that accepting the Islamic code would be a disaster for Britain.
Other leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.
With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.
One member of the church's "Cabinet", the Archbishop's Council, was reported as saying: "There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign."
Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a "state of shock" and "completely overwhelmed" by the scale of the row.
It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.
He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".
England has turned a blind eye to Islam, and is now faced with serious challenges.
Amy, I understand this is your site, and you choose what to post, and I really do not want to offend you, but you do a disservice to our faith when you misquote and quote out of context the bible to make your point:
Amy said:
“Old Testament passages are even more troubling. Lot, whom St. Paul writes as being a righteous man, had sex with his two daughters (their initiative, but he didn't exactly stop it). “
Here’s what is written:
Genesis 19:30-38
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth.
32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father."
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today.
38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.”
Please note in verses 33 and 35 that on both occasions, the bible clearly states that Lot was unaware. Also, note in verses 37 and 38 the offspring of both pregnancies resulted in combatants against Israel. It is also interesting to note there were no other descendants of Lot ever recorded. http://nabataea.net/foundingnations.html
Amy said:
“Lot also offered up his daughters to a crowd of angry homosexuals who wanted sex with Lot's guests...”
Here is the account:
Genesis 19:1-11
“1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.
11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.”
I’m pretty dang sure I wouldn’t offer up my daughters, but one has to consider that Lot new the power of God, and new his two guests were angels from the Lord. I can’t understand his actions, but once again, looking at the event in context provides clarity. Additionally, one might ask why the angels were there to begin with. The previous chapter tells us God sent his angels to remove Lot and his family from Sodom and Gomorrah before he destroyed it.
Amy said:
“there are commands to stone adulterers, those rebellious to their parents... a man was killed when he tried to save the Arc of the Covenant from falling.. how fair is that? His intentions were good but God commanded that no one touch it.”
Exodus 20:1-20
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below...
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy…
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."
Note what Moses wrote in verse 20. Also note that Solomon wrote in Proverbs Chapter 2:
“1 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
3 and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God. “
Remember, keeping things in context is paramount to understanding. The Old Testament law was harsh indeed, but if God’s people were to be in the presence of absolute Holiness, there could be no sin. That is what makes the sacrifice of Christ so significant. He delivered us from that law, and became our advocate with the Father.
Finally, I humbly submit that I am not at all a scholar of the Qur’an, and am not above mistakes and misunderstanding. So, if I have miss understood the intent of:
"(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, "Verily I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire." (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14)
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33)"
please show me and I’ll acquiesce. Context and clarity.
Amy said:
"It is therefore a hypocritical effort to define Islam only by the Quran and actions of terrorists or the uneducated while neglecting the actions of the millions of good Muslims around the world."
Amy, I hope you don't think me a hypocrite, but the essence of their religion is found in one text: the Qur'an. I am not judging the people, but the religion behind the people, against the bench mark of what we in the western world define as good and wholesome. Sorry for the enormous comment.
Gawfer, thanks for your thoughtfulness in debating. I do think we are mostly on the same side.
I agree.
Which is related to some of the same problems that France, Holland, and other European countries face.
Yes, I know there is a problem and a huge challenge facing modern civilization. A Muslim such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is on our side. He is a strong believer in the Constitution, in the Judeo-Christian heritage and values that built this nation, and in the notion of separation of Mosque and State, where we have the freedom to express ourselves in religious faith, while maintaining a secular government.
He is grateful to live in a country where he has the freedom to practice his faith, which is Islam, and enjoy the peace and prosperity, and opportunities that America affords him.
Among the many articulate, intelligent articles he's written, I'd like to share this one, as an example of a thoughtful, Muslim who recognizes that Islam needs reformation, as well as rationalizing why how he practices Islam is still Islam, rather than an apostate's aberration.
I encourage you and everyone to peruse some of the other articles.
Here and also Here.
The AIFD is NOT the same as CAIR. They are worlds apart.
Of course, the way American Muslims such as Dr. Jasser feel, is worlds away from how Muslims in other countries see themselves and their faith, where culture, tradition, and religion are deeply intertwined.
Keep in mind, too, that when Muslims express anti-Americanism, some of it can be chalked up to just plain ol' liberalism and anti-Americanism that is on par with that shared by a number of Europeans and Howard Zinn liberals within our own borders. Does the Koran provide a "genome" of radicalization? Perhaps. But, I think most Muslims just want to go about their business, provide for their families and are not prone to "going Jihad" against the West. Fundamentalist interpretations by influential Koranic scholars and leaders are a danger.
“For those Muslims living in freedom in the West, our counter movements have been stifled by apathy, ignorance, moral weakness, and control of most major Islamic organizations by Islamists.”
This is not isolated to Islam, but a human condition we all face.
“To this, these organizations would respond with denial. But I challenge them to produce any anti-Wahhabi, anti-Islamist texts, interpretations, or sermons of any impact or persistence from their Islamist teachers and enablers. From the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, they have remained driven and often funded by Wahhabi and Islamist interests who live and breathe political Islam.”
Great point! And it confirms what I’ve been saying about the Qur’an being the sole text of their religion.
“There is no getting past the fact that every people and nation ultimately get the “government they deserve” by virtue of their own action or inaction.”
Ha! I just posted a comment on another blog referring to the upcoming general election saying “we won’t get what we need [as president], but we’ll get what we deserve.”
“It is the same principle for our religious leadership, academia, mosques, and activist organizations within the Muslim community. As Muslims, unless we intellectually take on the fundamentalists, the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, and the Islamists for the intellectual reigns of our faith, we ultimately abrogate our ideology to their imams, clerics, and so-called ulemaa (scholars). The fact that I have a difficult time finding non-Islamist (or better yet, anti-Islamist Muslim) theological texts with which to teach my children is a serious problem to which few Muslims will own up.”
“To counter the Jihadist interpretation, we must disseminate peaceful interpretations of the same Koranic text especially in what appear to be the more troublesome passages utilized by Jihadists.”
OK, this is where I have a problem. When studying a text that was written 1400 years ago, to understand the meaning, one must use hermeneutics (the study of the methodological principles of interpretation) to understand in context the thoughts and motivations of the writer. Once that is accomplished, one can accurately discern the true intent. What Mr. Jasser is suggesting is to change the meaning of those specific passages to accommodate his new and modern ideas. To do so would completely invalidate the text as authoritative, thus undermining the religion. That would be akin to picking and choosing which stop lights to obey on a busy street.
Understanding who and what Mohammad was when he wrote his text provides a wealth of information that can be used to discern his intent. And trust me when I say he was NOT a nice guy.
“The Koran tells me that there is no clergy, no intermediaries, in our faith. All it takes to be a Muslim is to believe (bear witness) in the God of Abraham and the Message of the Prophet Mohammed. No other Muslim can tell me I’m not a Muslim and similarly, I cannot do the same. I can speak about Islamic behavior, ideologies, and practice, but takfir (apostasy: to deny a Muslim his chosen faith) is something only God can do on the Day of Judgment after our passing according to the Islam I was taught – no matter what the Wahhabis and Islamists may say. Apostasy laws are a prime example of what happens when Islamists have control of society’s legal venues. Similarly, blasphemy laws argue that the domain of religious scholars should be protected from critique. Post-modern society allows freedom of religion but not freedom from criticism or freedom from being offended. Islamists would use blasphemy laws to prevent valid critique of the political Islamist state. There are in fact, Islamic refutations to the imposition of blasphemy laws based upon universal religious freedom for all which can be argued within a liberty minded Islam.
There is no “communication” or “excommunication” for that matter involved in my being a Muslim. It is a complete free-for-all, with no institution providing or guaranteeing membership other than God. My faith, as I was taught, comes to me by virtue of my own choice and personal relationship with God. The Koran, to me as a Muslim, is God’s message. But the inspiration for my soul comes from within and is strengthened by my inner relationship with God. The text, God’s scripture, only validates that relationship. It is presented in the Koran as it was revealed in a setting, a history, of the 7th century, which Muslims need to separate from the religion which lives on today. Religion must modernize through ijtihad (re-interpretation) in order to stay relevant and relegate the outdated experiences to history. Without re-interpretation and separation of history from religion, it freezes in time and conflicts with modernity. The root cause of terrorism today is this conflict vis-à-vis political Islam and its conflict with Western secular democracy.”
I believe Mr. Jasser’s thoughts here go directly against the teaching of the Qur’an:
"Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the apostates? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Aouliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Mohammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." (Surat An-Nisa 4:88,89)”
Mohammad appears to be saying if a practicing Muslim turns away from the faith, true Muslims are to “take them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither (friends or Helpers) from them.
“Similarly, the debates within the faith of Islam as to the interpretation of what is and what is not Islamic behavior and theology should be open to every Muslim with equal access. The discourse should always be founded in reason. Once reason gives way to the clerical attempt to control us by exerting a monopoly of understanding of God’s intention, Islamism will surge to further domination.”
The only problem I see her is the human characteristic of people needing to follow a leader. As humans, we always error to the easy way, and having someone tell us ‘this and that’ is far easier than discovering for ourselves ‘this and that’. That is why there are so many cults and factions in the world today. People want to be told what to believe far more than they want to discover what to believe. There will always be a demand for the ‘clerics’ he mentions because of this propensity.
WS said:
Fundamentalist interpretations by influential Koranic scholars and leaders are a danger.
Agreed.
Great article WS, and I’ll follow the links to the others as well. Thank you as well for the meaningful debate.
Islam and Sharia are NOT compatible with Democracy. Period.
See wasn't that easy?
Shall I elaborate?
Sharia is a RELIGIOUS LAW. That's one.
Islam and it's followers both here in America and abroad in countries like France and England and the Netherlands etc.have shown clearly how Islam is not compatible.
Do not the stories of "Muslin only swim time", no pork in schools, prayer in schools only for Muslims, Taxi cabs drivers revolting over woman, dogs and booze show this as reality? Banks in England forced to end giving out free "piggy banks" because Islam was insulted. 25,000 Muslim rioters in the streets of Pakistan over a poorly mde 15 minute film that only really pointed out reality? (Gertz) Prisons spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to change toilet placement so as not to offend Mecca.
"Palestinians" selling Osama Bin Laden dolls in the market place, with free complimentary twin towers? Pioneers of Tomorrow? Woman mutilated and/or killed in the name of Islam. Woman threated like chattel? How is this compatible?
And the worst... is the acceptance by the so called "moderates" of those only a few really claim "hijacked" their peaceful religion. How, how is this compatible?
Answer?
Islam and Sharia are NOT compatible with Democracy. Period.
See wasn't that easy?
Then by that token, Democracy and Liviticus (ie. The Holy Bible - which is the source of most Islamic edicts) are not compatible.
Personally, I don't abide by religious laws. I abide by secular laws. I do not want to practice the Catholic religion, any more than I want to practice the Muslim religion, or any other religion.
When religious laws become state laws, that's called Theocracy. I oppose, with every fiber of my being, theocracies.
"Then by that token, Democracy and Liviticus (ie. The Holy Bible - which is the source of most Islamic edicts) are not compatible."
Very good Mudkitty, you must have been paying attention to my earlier post where I said:"...Mohammad studied early Christian texts as well as the Torah prior to penning the Qur'an. That is evident by the comparisons between the Qur'an and the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts of the bible. But you'll notice a departure from the bible to accommodate a certain belief structure that Mohammad took when he wrote his text...”
It must really strain that fibrous body of yours knowing that our representative democracy was founded on those very principles you seem to hate, and that our laws were established from the religious edicts you so despise, making them totally compatible.
BTW, the title of the book in which you referenced is Leviticus, and was named in part for Levi, the great grandson of Abraham. Just thought you’d like to know.
G - I knew that long before your post - about how Islam is based on biblical tenants. I site Leviticus all the time. You're way behind the curve, even on this site. Where've you been?
As for representative democracy, if it includes only the religious, then it isn't representative, now is it? Fool.