Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/19/2001 12:02 AM (GMT -6)

Friends-

I’d like to pass on some personal reflections regarding the events of last week. I’ve lived here in the Middle East for nearly 20 years now, the last seven of those years here in Beirut, Lebanon. I love the Middle East. I love Arabs, both Christians and Muslims. I have enjoyed very close and meaningful friendships with Muslims through the years and the events of last week haven’t changed my mind about wanting to continue living here.

One very interesting friend of mine is Khalid [not his real name], a Sunni Muslim journalist working for a Beirut newspaper. He’s just now finishing up a Ph.D. in Islamics. His expertise is in Islamic history. I sat with Khalid and his elderly father (a gentle and kind man) this week and discussed the recent attacks in D.C. and NY. I wish you all could have sat with us and listened in.

Khalid has just passed on to me a paper he wrote on the roots of violence in Islam. It’s an opening survey of how Jihad (“Holy War”) has been interpreted throughout the centuries both by fringe radical groups and by Orthodox Muslim theologians. It confirmed my own suspicions regarding Islam and contradicts the claim being made by the many Muslims that Islam is a peace-loving faith that has nothing to do with Fundamentalist notions of Holy War.

This was voiced loud and clear by the Muslims who stood behind President Bush in the Islamic Center in D.C. and by many leaders of Islamic nations. For example, Afghanistan Ambassador to the U.N., Ravan Farhadi, just yesterday claimed on CNN, “Islam demands the peaceful co-existence of Muslims with non-Muslim peoples.” Sorry guys. I’ve talked to too many Muslims and read too much to believe this claim has any credibility.

There are no doubt many Muslims who are not violent people and who themselves want to co-exist with non-Muslim peoples, but in this respect they do not reflect the heart of Islam as it is clearly portrayed in its historical expansion and in its documents of faith (the Qur’an and the Hadith [Sayings of the Prophet]).

Khalid’s paper convincingly argues several points, among them:

1) The lack of a clear, democratic framework for the transfer of authority in Islam. There is no instrument by which dissenting groups in Islamic society can effect political change or attain political power through peaceful and civil means.

2) The absence of a clear-cut demarcation between religious and temporal affairs in Islam. This feature, already present in Muhammad’s own day and characteristic of his Caliphs (Successors) as well, led opposition groups to mix politics with religion and appeal to the Qur’an and Hadith to support their views.

3) Another important feature of Islam that encourages and justifies violence is Jihad, or “struggling in the way of God [Allah].” Khalid’s paper traces how Jihad (“Holy War”) was understood by—please note—orthodox Islam as well as by radical fringe fundamentalist groups. I was surprised to read quote after quote by orthodox Sunni theologians (never mind their names for now), members of El-Azhar University in Cairo, and Saudi scholars, making it clear that Jihad is not merely “defense” of Muslims against non-Muslim aggressors, but it is an “offensive” war to be waged on non-Muslim peoples.

All Muslims are duty-bound to wage this war when the military means is at their disposal, to spread Islam throughout the world and establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The offensive Jihad is wagged on two fronts. First, “pagans” (i.e., all non-Muslim peoples who are not Jewish or Christian) are to be offered an opportunity to accept Islam. If this offer is refused they are to be killed. The texts are here in front of me. If Muslim leaders in D.C., NY, Miami, or Minneapolis tell us otherwise, then they don’t know their own faith and/or haven't studied enough history. This is the dark side of Islam nobody, especially politicians, want to talk about. It is always there. Secondly, wherever Jews and Christians (“People of the Book”) are encountered as Islam is spread, they are to be given the opportunity to either a) accept Islam, b) refuse to convert and pay a tax, or b) refuse to pay the tax and be killed.

When peace-loving Muslims claim that Islam demands peaceful co-existence with non-Muslim peoples, they are either ignorant or dishonest. As my friend Khalid insisted, Islam is intolerant of pluralistic societies. It has little respect for religious diversity. Islamic countries that attempt to replicate such Western, democratic values do so by burying the tension. When push comes to shove, the tension surfaces. Islam requires political control and eventually statehood. It is a missionary religion, just as surely as is Christianity, rightly understood.

Jumping to another topic a bit. Seems to me the administration is overstating things a bit when it categorically claims that it will “fight and win the war against terrorism” and “bring an end to terror” in our world. I understand our reluctance to accept that terrorism is here to stay and that the best thing we can hope to do is “fight it effectively.” But that’s exactly the case. Terrorism, like sin, is here to stay. Jesus will eradicate it when he comes. And Americans are sadly mistaken if they think there will EVER come a day when what we saw last week will cease to remain a possibility, and when lesser strikes will cease to remain a reality. As long as Islam exists there will exist the ideological/philosophical/religious culture necessary to inspiring terrorists. There IS a relationship between Islam and what happened last week. You’ll hear Muslim clerics and politicians on CNN continue to deny it, but it’s true. Muslims who genuinely strive to co-exist peacefully with non-Muslim peoples are not, technically speaking, a Qur'anic data. They fit into no historical or textual category of Islam.

Gotta go. Oh, by the way, my friend Khalid is a committed follower of Christ.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 09/19/2001 05:15:02 AM

Edited by - TGB on 09/19/2001 08:35:42 AM

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 9/19/2001 8:26 AM (GMT -6)

THANKS TOM FOR YOUR REFLECTIONS.

The missions professor here at my seminary has been saying many of the same things you have been.

Cibertus

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 9/19/2001 5:49 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,
Wow, I have a lot of questions for you...I DO wish I could have sat there with you and listened in. It is frustrating that our main source of info. over here (probably because we're too lazy, or not able to, investigate further ourselves) is the media. We don't hear about people like your friend Khalid. Thanks so much for writing some of it down. Some questions, if you (or anyone) have time.

1. I've been thinking a lot recently about the crusades, and how, when they come up in conversation, I'm quick to say that you need to separate Christianity from the actions of those who claim to be Christians. I wonder if any of the same type of thing is happening in Islam? People have taken the Bible and used it as a way to back any number of crazy cults and crusades. Does the same thing happen with the Qur'an?

2. I'm confused with the actions the Taliban has taken. Why, if their goal is to wage a holy war against Americans (at least they're being consistent), did they come out within hours of the attack and condemn it? Why are they even giving our requests the time of day? Why not just dismiss us as the "satan" nation and ignore us, and keep sponsoring terrorism against us? Why would they even consider handing over Bin Laden (who, btw, I don't think would EVER be taken alive)?

You said--

quote:
Jumping to another topic a bit. Seems to me the administration is overstating things a bit when it categorically claims that it will “fight and win the war against terrorism” and “bring an end to terror” in our world. I understand our reluctance to accept that terrorism is here to stay and that the best thing we can hope to do is “fight it effectively.” But that’s exactly the case. Terrorism, like sin, is here to stay. Jesus will eradicate it when he comes. And Americans are sadly mistaken if they think there will EVER come a day when what we saw last week will cease to remain a possibility, and when lesser strikes will cease to remain a reality.

I agree so much with you here. I realize that people want reassurance in times like this, and that politicians need to give some of this "reassurance talk" to people, but people are in denial if they really think this is over, or that the U.S. can "eradicate terrorism from the world." If anything, our going to war will likely bring more terroristic attacks on us.

You said--

quote:
Muslims who genuinely strive to co-exist peacefully with non-Muslim peoples are not, technically speaking, a Qur'anic data. They fit into no historical or textual category of Islam.

I can be a little sympathetic here, because my open theist ideas don't let me fit in any categories of Christianity, either (though I guess this IS changing, slowly!)

Thanks again for your insight. I always appreciate it.

Jen
************************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/20/2001 4:31 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
1. I've been thinking a lot recently about the crusades, and how, when they come up in conversation, I'm quick to say that you need to separate Christianity from the actions of those who claim to be Christians. I wonder if any of the same type of thing is happening in Islam? People have taken the Bible and used it as a way to back any number of crazy cults and crusades. Does the same thing happen with the Qur'an?

Jen-

Islam is a difficult thing to pin down in many respects. On the one hand you have the almost universal condemnation of ben Laden by Muslim religious leaders and politicians who this past week have called him everything from “on the extreme end of things” to a “crazed fanatic.” What you won’t hear any of these leaders call him is an apostate Muslim. They will never say ben Laden is not a Muslim, that he’s betrayed his faith. After all the theologians have defined Islam’s orthodox center (usually boiled down to the Five Pillars), in the end there is in fact one defining act which determines whether or not one is a Muslim, and that is the Shehadeh (the “witness”) which proclaims, “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Apostle.” As long as ben Laden declares this, he remains a member of the universal Ummah (“Islamic Community”). So, though Muslims in the USA want to disassociate themselves from his fanaticism, they cannot disassociate themselves from his faith, for ben Laden IS a Muslim.

Your question is a good one, Jen. I’d say the same sort of thing happens in Islam but not in quite the same way. No doubt Muslims are quick to point out to Westerners that ben Laden doesn’t represent Islam and that in spite of him Westerners can justifiably embrace Islam. But this is not quite the same thing you and I do when we tell people to disassociate faith in Christ from the Crusades. What we’re saying is blood-thirsty Crusaders stand outside the umbrella of genuine faith in Christ. We (well, at least I) want to assure Muslims that Crusaders weren’t real believers at all. But this is not what Muslim denouncers of ben Laden are saying, the reason being that Islam’s umbrella does embrace both ben Laden and those Muslims who deplore his actions. BOTH are Muslims, and as such have more in common with each other than do you and those Muslims who deplore ben Laden’s actions. This is something that continues to elude Westerners and, I think, accounts for our confusion when we later call upon these same Muslim leaders and find them reluctant to join in the attack. We hear Muslim leaders declare, “ben Laden is a fanatic! Don’t judge Islam as a religion by such people,” and what WE hear is, “ben Laden is not a Muslim. Islam has no room in it for such people.” But this is not what they’re saying. What they’re saying is Islam is big enough to include both ben Laden AND people like you who, valuing freedom, diversity, and human rights, deplore ben Laden. Ben Laden can do what he does and be a Muslim and you can deplore him for such behaviour and also be a Muslim. All the better for Islam! See how flexible and diverse it is?

quote:
2. I'm confused with the actions the Taliban has taken. Why, if their goal is to wage a holy war against Americans (at least they're being consistent), did they come out within hours of the attack and condemn it? Why are they even giving our requests the time of day? Why not just dismiss us as the "satan" nation and ignore us, and keep sponsoring terrorism against us? Why would they even consider handing over Bin Laden…

Officially, the Taliban have not declared Jihad against the US. Not yet at least. Ben Laden seems to have done so. The Taliban have been content to play the part of host and leave it at that. Afghanistan is poor, suffering, and the northern alliance still presents a threat to them. So their grasp of the country is a weak one. Declaring a world-wide Jihad on the West hasn’t been in their best interests. Certainly they realize that they simply don’t have the resources to wage a full-scale offensive Jihad against the civilized world. But that’s not to say that an attack on them by us wouldn’t provoke them to take such a step in spite of their depleted resources.

As I’m coming to understand more and more, historically Jihad was a “community” affair, a decision made by the Caliph (Successor to the Prophet Muhammad) on behalf of the Ummah (Islamic Community; the “ekklesia” of Muhammad). It was the Caliph who declared Jihad, and all Muslims were to participate. Such wars were sometimes defensive (which is what the Taliban would claim their Jihad would be if we were to attack them) and other times offensive (undertaken in order to bring Islam to other nations). The Taliban are in no position to declare an offensive Jihad against America. But regardless of their resources, they would have to declare a defensive Jihad if we attacked them. In the case of an offensive Jihad against peaceful nations for the purpose of winning people to Islam (something which is unquestionably orthodox within itself regardless of what Muslim leaders in the West would say) the declaration a) must be made by a Caliph, or Successor to the Prophet (of which there are non today), or by a recognized Muslim head of state (like, say, Khomeini), and b) must be preceded by the invitation to convert to Islam.

The point is, Holy War, or Jihad, is not something just any Muslim has a right to declare. Ben Laden doesn’t have the right to do so, just as I as an American have no right to declare war on another nation on behalf of America. That has to be done by Congress and the President. So Holy War has to be an official act taken by a head of state. See?

For example, if I were to declare war on French people as an American, Americans would be right in denouncing me as a fanatic terrorist. They may even hate my guts. They would tell new immigrants applying for citizenship in the US that I in no way represent what’s best about America. But I’m STILL an American, just as much as other Americans who denounce me. In a similar way, ben Laden is a Muslim regardless of his terrorist actions, and Holy War as an offensive military strike against non-Muslim peoples is unquestionably an orthodox tenet of Islam. What’s unorthodox about ben Laden is a) he doesn’t really possess the authority to declare such a Jihad, and b) he is expressly disobeying the orthodox teaching that non-Muslims are to be allowed an opportunity first to convert to Islam. Only if non-Muslims refuse are they to be killed. So, when Muslim leaders deplore ben Laden, what they’re saying (if indeed they know their own orthodox teachings, which you can’t always count on) is that he is going about a right thing in an unorthodox manner. Of course, Muslim leaders either don’t understand this point themselves or don’t wish to tell us the entire story.

And here’s the rub too. Although most Muslims who understand the requirements of offensive Jihad would denounce ben Laden and the Taliban at present, millions of them would side with the Taliban in the event it becomes a defensive war. That’s an entirely different matter. Just watch.

Sorry for being so longwinded!

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 09/20/2001 09:49:33 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/21/2001 5:23 AM (GMT -6)

I got the following stuff in my email today. I found it very thought provoking and perhaps true. Thought I'd put this here.

Meph

______________________

This comes from Tamim, a writer and columnist in San Francisco, who comes from Afghanistan.

*****

I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.

But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps."

It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban-by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the
>belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war
between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Tamim Ansary

************************

End question from Meph: Has anyone here heard or read Bin Laden's speeches? If so, where can I get access to them?

Washin9ton Apple
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 5

Posted 9/21/2001 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

hello everybody in the internet world. i just wanted to thank you guys for the wonderful and insightful information given to us who arn't as informed. i feel that i've come across this forum not by accident and want to thank those who are gracious enough to share some background on the situation of the middle east.
May God have Mercy on us all.
Apple

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 9/21/2001 12:17 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Mephi, I was going to post the same thing. A friend who works for World Relief forwarded it to me. I really appreciate the perspective of people who are there—so thanks for comments Tom.

At first I pitied (but by no means excused) the terrorists, picturing them as oppressed (probably at the hands of “Christian” Americans), deperate, destitute people. But now I realize that these people were not destitute—they are the people who prey on the destitute. Osama is an educated, multi-millionaire, religious man. I have no pity for him. pia

“An exploration of reality is no place to lose touch with reality.” — Magneton

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 9/21/2001 10:02 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,
Thanks for responding to my questions. Your knowledge is so helpful and I appreciate the detail in your answers. I just spent the last few hours talking about these things (and what Mephi posted) with friends. Everything is just a little strange right now. I mean, here we are, basically having declared war on the Taliban (anyone else watch Bush's speech on Thursday night??) and no one really knows what's going to happen next. When the first bombs are dropped, we may witness it live on TV. Ted Koppel was live on Nightline tonight, interviewing some dude who is a high-ranking Taliban guy (who is in Pakistan for some reason), asking him if his country will go to war with us. WEIRD. The economy is dropping, but people are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to charity and relief funds. Bush is giving hugs to Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton. Cheney is always hiding in a bunker somewhere. Oprah is practically preaching the gospel on her show. And the firemen are still digging.

You said:

quote:
The point is, Holy War, or Jihad, is not something just any Muslim has a right to declare. Ben Laden doesn’t have the right to do so, just as I as an American have no right to declare war on another nation on behalf of America. That has to be done by Congress and the President. So Holy War has to be an official act taken by a head of state. See?

So basically the only one who could do this now is, like you said, a "recognized Muslim head of state." Does anyone in the Taliban fit this description? And if they did, would they follow the tenets of their religion and first allow us a chance to convert to Islam?

You said:

quote:
And here’s the rub too. Although most Muslims who understand the requirements of offensive Jihad would denounce ben Laden and the Taliban at present, millions of them would side with the Taliban in the event it becomes a defensive war. That’s an entirely different matter. Just watch.

Yeah, things will get interesting. We have the verbal "support" of many nations now (Bush: either you are with us, or you support the terrorists), but that could change very quickly...but it's tricky. A place like Iran is in some conflict right now, with a large part of the nation wanting to become more "westernized," wanting better relations with the U.S. And some in Iran want nothing to do with us. I very much believe the King of Jordan when he speaks about relations with the U.S., but his country is small, and could be caught in the middle if some sort of "Western vs. Islam" war takes place. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are interesting. We have the support of both Pakistan and India, but those 2 countries are also fighting each other in the Kashmir, so they're really not playing on the same side of things. Iraq is always a problem. And there's Syria and Lebanon. And tiny Israel, with all the problems already there. And other countries I can't think of now. Whew. Things will be interesting.

Thanks again Tom for your insights. And thanks Mephi for posting the e-mail.

Jen
***********************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/22/2001 7:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
So basically the only one who could do this now is, like you said, a "recognized Muslim head of state." Does anyone in the Taliban fit this description?

No. None of ‘em claim to. But they’d probably argue that since there is no Caliph (Successor) around today, a consensus of religious leaders would be good enough. That's where Muslims begin arguing among themselves. Sufi Muslims (the mystics of Islam), for example, totally spiritualize the concept of Jihad and interpret it as striving to win the war against sinful self. The problem is the Qur’an doesn’t address what to do in the absence of a Caliph. Muslims assumed the Caliphate would always be around. In some respects, Muslims today have to adjust here and there in interpreting certain aspects of the law, kind of like what Jews did after the destruction of the temple.

quote:
And if they did, would they follow the tenets of their religion and first allow us a chance to convert to Islam?

Certainly not. They most likely consider us as informed enough about Islam, that as a nation we’ve already said “No” to Islam.

But it’s interesting. I sat with Khalid several times this week to go over and over this stuff. It’s like when you push a balloon in at one point it compensates for the pressure by enlarging itself somewhere else. Fundamentalist Muslims I think (like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day) have answers for nearly every objection. Push it in here and it pops out there. And those objections don’t come only from non-Muslim Westerners, they come for other Muslims too.

But I’m afraid that if peace-loving Muslims in the West want us to understand how upset they are about this and how much they feel the Taliban and bin Laden are extremists, they need to be proactive in announcing it publicly. They can’t depend upon CNN reporters to stop them occasionally on the street to ask them for their opinion. They may be denouncing bin Laden in their mosques, but the message never makes it out. They have to begin immediately publishing in all the major newspapers and news magazines their disgust for the Taliban and bin Laden. They need to stage marches, discussions with churche and synagogue leaders and other groups. They should spend less money on expensive tiling for their mosques and buy prime-time TV spots to declare loud and clear that they deplore the Taliban and bin Laden. If they think Bush’s visit to a D.C. mosque is gonna do it, forget it. I know stuff like this has made the news here and there, but they need to go full throttle. Muslims around the world need to weigh on more decidedly against the Taliban and bin Laden I think.

I wish I could get that message out to them, but I don’t know how.

Hey, all, I’m boarding a flight here in Beirut in two hours with my two girls to fly home to Virginia to join my wife and two boys.

Talk to ya later.

Tom

“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor

Edited by - TGB on 09/22/2001 1:00:05 PM

Edited by - TGB on 09/22/2001 1:01:27 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/22/2001 11:01 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the site Washing9ton Apple.

TGB, thanks tons for the insights.

An Irrelevant Observation
I taught World Religions for 10 years at Bethel, and I always found this curious: While I have met many many Muslim people I love and admire, Islam is the ONE religion I honestly have never LIKED. Though I largely disagree with them, I find many aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confusionism, etc. appealing. But Islam just leaves me cold.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 9/22/2001 5:48 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

An Irrelevant Observation
I taught World Religions for 10 years at Bethel, and I always found this curious: While I have met many many Muslim people I love and admire, Islam is the ONE religion I honestly have never LIKED. Though I largely disagree with them, I find many aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confusionism, etc. appealing. But Islam just leaves me cold.

Doc

First, I just want to thank you, TGB, for all you've written here so far. It's been really helpful to me and even sparked a good conversations with some Muslim friends at work as I try to understand what they believe.

And Doc, I've been reading a lot in the past week about Islam -- it's one of the fastest growing religion in the world with 5-6 million Muslims in the US alone as of nearly four years ago. Very large numbers of them are new converts as well as new immigrants. From what I've read, they find the Muslim religion to be easier to understand(?) because there's no Trinity, no extra prayers to the saints for former Catholics, and because they like the regimented rules to follow. Another big draw was that they felt a part of a smaller community. Others said they felt it was coming back to the religion that had been "taken away" from them in their heritage. But the main thing is that they do consider it a missionary religion and are really seeking people out. It's been so eye-opening to see the desperate need for me to step out of my own comfort zone and try to reach people for Christ.That's what it's all about. It's so clear now!

I totally agree with you that it all seems so cold. After staying up until 3 last night reading the Quran, it was such a lovely blessing to sit and read the words of Christ -- such a HUGE contrast. But how we need to reach out to people!!!

God bless you all!

Edited by - faith on 09/23/2001 2:39:45 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/23/2001 4:09 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

While I have met many many Muslim people I love and admire, Islam is the ONE religion I honestly have never LIKED. Though I largely disagree with them, I find many aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confusionism, etc. appealing. But Islam just leaves me cold.

Wow. Something ELSE that we completely agree on. I guess the world really IS coming to an end. Heh.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/23/2001 09:11:43 AM

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 9/23/2001 9:46 AM (GMT -6)

I had a question for you, Tom -- or to anyone else who knows: I read something saying that Muhammed chose his Allah from a Pagan god and that there is a deep spiritual battle because of the demonic forces at work. Has anyone heard anything like that or of a good book that might tell me more? Thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer!

Trista
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 6

Posted 9/23/2001 8:18 PM (GMT -6)

Hello everyone. I am very new to this type of forum so please be patient with me.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia for 5 years, and like most of you have said, met many wonderful Muslim people. The thing that struck me most when I came to this country was the dedication to prayer. The longer I stayed the more I realized the lack of original thought.
Faith, I agree with the things you have heard from converts, it is easier, alot easier, because you are simply told what to do.
This is definitely a Blueprint Theology, if I understand that correctly. Please let me know if I am in error.
Standing outside a grocery store one evening, waiting for prayer to be over (everything closes during prayer, not a bad idea in itself), I watched a toddler run out into the center of the parking lot repeatedly, while his father stood near his car. The boy was nearly hit by a taxi, and my husband ran out to grab him and brought him to the father. The man of course feels, if Allah wills it the child will die,or be mamed, there is nothing to be done.
This attitude abounds. It is the one thing that has really made me question the will of God in Christian thought, and has brought me to the Warfare Worldview. Most of us haven't really seen the impact that believing every single thing is willed by God can have on a culture. It is shocking.
Also, I have much literature that states Muslims are peace loving, only attack in response to an attack on them, etc... I believe that most Muslims believe this to be the case. I do agree with TGB though, they really haven't read all the literature. They are only in their second generation of literacy here, many still can only write their name. I'm sure Afghanistan is the same way, probably more so. We need, meaning the leaders of our country need, to keep this in mind. I pray they do.

Thank you and God Bless you,
Trista

Our best defenses are prayer, forgiveness and love.

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 9/24/2001 1:20 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Trista, welcome to the board. Thanks for your input. It's nice to have the perspective of people like you (and Tom) who live in the Middle East.

The flavor of this thread has sort of become "what I don't like about Islam," and I'm sorry to keep it going, but I do have an observation. I was watching the memorial service at Yankee (?) stadium yesterday on TV. Overall it was okay (I loved the Harlem choir!) but when the Muslim men got up and prayed to Allah, I felt kind of creeped out, and I wonder if some others (especially those who lost close friends, relatives, family members) did too. Here's why--some (just some) of the prayers offered were probably the same ones offered a few days earlier by those who hijacked the planes and took them down. They very well could have been saying them as they took the planes down, carrying out what they did in the name of Allah (or maybe they just hate Americans without any real dedication to Islam--that's my dad's opinion). Anyways, I know it's speculation...but that's how it felt to me.

***********************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 10/10/2001 12:59:25 PM

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 10/10/2001 4:53 AM (GMT -6)

I'd be really interested to hear how things are going for you all that live in the Middle East. Has the tension been mounting? I'd like to pray for you -- how best can I do that?
Here in the US, Islam has been the focus of everything from newspaper reports to Oprah and it all keeps emphasizing the same thing -- how it's a "peaceful religion" and Muslims worship the "same God" as Jews and Christians. Everything is worded carefully to not offend the many Muslims living in our country and around the world. I understand that many people fear antagonizing the people of the Islamic faith for good reason (there's over a billion Muslims around the world) but in you all's opinion, how closely is terrorism linked to the Islamic faith itself? Is it truly going to be possible to fight only terrorism and not the ideals that may have caused it? Is it dangerous, from a spiritual perspective, to fight what the Taliban has declared a jihad while our leaders announce, in essence, that all monotheistic religions are the same?
I've been reading a book about persecuted Christians from around the world and really wonder -- here in the US, Islam is being painted as merciful and peaceful and anything other than that is a "perversion of Islam." Is the culture of Islamic nations able to be separated from the religion (as they've tried to show here in the states) or is that a myth?
Thanks in advance for responding when you have the time. May God bless you all!

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 10/10/2001 7:57 AM (GMT -6)

How many times have we heard in the past few days: "This is a war against terrorism, not against Islam." Too many times to count--Tony Blair, Bush, others...they all say the same thing. But I just do NOT think this is true. For those who have carried out "terrorism," and continue to do so, their isn't a distinction between Islam and terrorism. Certain segments of the Muslim faith will claim the separation, and that's fine, but for those who do terrorism in the name of Allah, THERE IS NO DISTINCTION. So to say this is not a war against Islam is stupid. It is a war against Islam, at least against certain SEGMENTS of Islam. I wish the world leaders would at least acknowledge this. The terrorism is too widespread to be just a product of certain cultures (though I do think this contributes, for sure).

************************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 10/10/2001 9:10 AM (GMT -6)

Whatsupp: I completely disagree. When you say this is a war against Islam, you stir up unrest in places that might be supportive of us and what we are doing. Plus, it is a war against terrorism, not Islam. Just like all religions, Islam has members that are fanatics. I am against Christians who act in the name of God and use means that evil means. The religion does not matter to me, it is what they do in the name of religion. I think what these leaders are doing is correct and very helpful. John 17:3 Harold

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/10/2001 3:24 PM (GMT -6)

How about "It's a war against one particular interpretaion of Islam"? After all, you have Sufi Muslims who are pacifists who stand at the opposite end of the spectrum from bin Laden.

Allahu Akbar
Tom

“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/10/2001 5:16 PM (GMT -6)

Whaassuuuppp, I understand your point. But would you want to grant that all who have ever opposed segments of Chrsitianity -- say the butchering crusaders in the middle ages, or the butchering Serbs in Bosnia, are truly warring against "Christianity"? I want to distance myself from THOSE BUTCHERING PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS as much as many Muslims want to distance themselves from the terrorists.

We are siding with peace loving Muslims when we say "our war is not against Islam, but against Terrorism." And I think it is not only wise, but proper to do so -- out of respect for all peace loving Muslims. I'd want this courtesy extended to me when non-christians talk about the crusaders, or even the hateful Protestants in Northern Ireland for that matter.

See the point?

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

faith
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 10/10/2001 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

I'm just wondering -- did anyone see my questions at the bottom of page one? If they did and chose not to answer, that's totally fine. I just wondered if anyone saw them. I'd be really curious to know what others, particularly TGB, thinks. My opinions aren't formed. I don't know enough about it to make any statement. (Maybe never will!) I just had a lot of questions.
I do agree with what's being said. Stereotypes do so much harm. The questions I asked were in no way meant to be divisive or hurtful to anyone -- just things I'd like to understand about the Muslim faith -- in keeping with the way this thread began. Thanks again!

Edited by - faith on 10/10/2001 10:40:03 PM

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 10/10/2001 9:03 PM (GMT -6)

I guess I should have known people wouldn't like that last one. But I think it's worth talking about--the show Politically Incorrect was about this exact stuff tonight. One quote from the show:
"The religious context of this problem is central to it's meaning"

Here's the thing--all I want to do is just acknowledge what Bin Laden and his compadres are saying (though agreeing with him is not a real popular thing to do). If we don't admit the religious component to what is happening, and just call it terrorism, we can't totally appreciate the motivation behind the terrorism. Bill Maher said this tonight: "Understanding is not synonymous with sympathizing." I think he's just pointing out that we should try to understand the religious roots of Bin Laden's terrorism--but obviously not for the purpose of sympathizing with those who carry it out.

Do you all really disagree with what I said, that for those who CARRY OUT terrorism, there isn't a distinction between their Islamic faith and the terrorism they do? Believe me, I grant that this is a minority of those in the Islamic faith...but regardless, it is a segment. That's why I said it's a war against certain segments of Islam. A better way to put it is how TGB did--that it's a "war against one particular interpretation of Islam."

When we fight Bin Laden, and his Al Qaeda network, and some other groups, we are fighting the ideals they hold to--which, they claim, are based on their interpretation of the Islamic faith. The truth is this—we ARE trying to “root out” this one interpretation of Islam. We really are. And in this way, it IS a religious war...though I understand why the U.S. is going to great lengths to deny this. Terminology gets sticky in times like this...we are trying to build a national network against terrorism, so even saying this is a war against a particular interpretation of Islam is probably a bad move...so I guess I'll recant what I originally said--I really don't want to see Bush say anything different. But I still do think that what Bush can't say in public is an unavoidable reality...and I think that other Muslim nations know this.

I still wonder if Bin Laden and his people are using Islam mainly as a front for a political agenda. If so, then saying that his group is a part of Islam in the same way that the Crusaders (or the Serbs, or the Irish Protestants) were a part of Christianity makes more sense. If not, then I don't know if the analogy (pointed out many times already) has as much strength.

Having said all that...I am NOT in favor of making this a war against all of Islam. How could I be? I know that most Muslims do not support Bin Laden. In fact, many Muslims have fled "Islamic" countries to escape the likes of Bin Laden. They denounce Bin Laden and what he does. Along these lines, I'm still curious about TGB's post that started this whole thread--about how, though Bin Laden's actions are denounced, his Muslim faith isn't--comments???

One final thing--I hate to be a pessimist, but we're not going to "rid the world" of these folks. And they're not going to rid the world of us "westerners." Eventually, though, someone's going to nuke someone else, and it'll all be downhill from there...well that's enough joyful thoughts for one evening!

************************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 10/11/2001 02:06:22 AM

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 10/10/2001 10:23 PM (GMT -6)

Here's an interesting article--What does Bin Laden want?

From Time.com:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html

October 15, 2001 Vol. 158 No. 17
Roots Of Rage
Osama's Endgame
His aims are clear--to expel the U.S. from the Islamic world and unite Muslims in one empire
BY LISA BEYER

COURTESY OF AL-JAZEER/AP
He's No Fool: Bin Laden, with lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri, has a well-articulated plan of action

There is a word that gets attached to elusive international villains. The word is shadowy. Carlos the Jackal was shadowy. Abu Nidal was shadowy. One of the novelties of Osama bin Laden is that he is hardly shadowy at all. There is little mystery about bin Laden's life except his precise whereabouts now. For a terrorist ringleader, he has given a remarkable number of interviews. He has even played host at a press conference. Bin Laden has talked articulately about his history, his outlook, his strategy to defeat the U.S. What he hasn't told journalists he has laid out in fairly eloquent treatises. While the world was surprised by what bin Laden or his associates did on Sept. 11, it cannot be surprised by his intentions. These have been made clear for years by his many pronouncements.

What's He After?
Bin Laden's ambitions in the short run are plain. His first goal is to compel the U.S. to withdraw its military forces (today numbering 6,000) from his native Saudi Arabia. The presence of foreign troops in the cradle of Islam is, for him, "the latest and the greatest" of all infidel aggressions against the religion in its 14-century history. By their very presence, he believes, the U.S. forces defile the Muslim holy land. "Now infidels walk everywhere on the land where Muhammad was born and where the Koran was revealed to him," he lamented to TIME in a 1998 interview.

Because the U.S. troops are in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudi government, which was frightened into the move by a threat of invasion by Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1990, the Saudi regime, says bin Laden, "is fully responsible" for their presence. Thus he has called on his countrymen to overthrow the House of Saud. Still, he has targeted his attacks not on the rulers but on the Americans, noting that "the American enemy is the main cause of the situation."

To bin Laden, the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia are the worst but not the only manifestation of U.S. ill will. Asked by CNN in 1997 whether their withdrawal would appease him, he said no. The holy war will not stop, he said, until the U.S. "desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world." Bin Laden counts as unacceptable the American military presence in other Arab states, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. He is offended by continued U.S. sanctions against Iraq as well as Syria, Sudan, Libya and Iran. And he objects to America's substantial support of Israel, which he considers a partner to the U.S. in a "Jewish-Crusader" conspiracy against Muslims.

Bin Laden stretches his definition of American aggression further. He blames the U.S. for the killing of Bosnian Muslims by Christian Serbs because of a U.N. arms embargo against Bosnia until 1994. He even counts in this category the 1992-94 mission by U.S. troops to mostly Muslim Somalia as part of a U.N. effort to assist a famine-starved population caught between battling warlords. In bin Laden's book, the troop landing was simply a show of force by the U.S. "to scare the Muslim world, saying that it is able to do whatever it desires." He asked, "How can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all those [other] places?"--meaning Iraq, Bosnia and, through the Israelis, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

And Then What?
After the infidels have been expelled from the land of Islam, bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals, foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the establishment of one united government strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law. This vision harks back to the age of the caliphs, the successors to Muhammad who ruled Islam's domain from the 7th century to the 13th. What might a caliphate look like today? In bin Laden's view, it would look something like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he has praised as "among the keenest to fulfill [Allah's] laws." Bin Laden may imagine himself to be a potential new caliph. One of the titles he uses is "emir," which means ruler. However, he swears allegiance to (and thereby ranks himself below) the Taliban ruler, Mullah Mohammed Omar, so whatever political ambitions bin Laden may have are not yet on display.

Some bin Laden watchers speculate that he particularly has his eye on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as they possess, respectively, 25% of all proven oil reserves and the Islamic world's only known nuclear bomb. Bin Laden has referred to the Saudi oil fields as "a large economic power essential for the soon-to-be-established Islamic state." Asked by TIME in 1998 about reports that he was trying to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons, he replied, "If I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."

But for bin Laden, the game is not as simple as taking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council staff member now writing a book on religious terror: "He is looking for a world in which Islam regains the dominant role, and naturally that would include oil and nukes. But to say it's about oil and nukes suggests it's not a metaphysical struggle, which it is for him. He thinks this is a big moral battle in which he's got Allah's sanction to attack the West." In a 1996 proclamation, bin Laden asked, "O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 10/11/2001 03:24:25 AM

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 10/10/2001 11:03 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry, I have a few more thoughts. This stuff is really on my mind tonight. I heard someone say (on NPR I think?) that bin Laden wants us to go after him. The attacks were a provocation with the hopes that we would retaliate, to give him more leverage and support, to hopefully pull more people over to his "side." It's an interesting idea.

Also, I heard tonight that the U.S. may start dropping wind-up radios into Afghanistan--radios that get only one station--a pro-U.S. broadcast. It's an interesting way to disseminate info.

***********************

Lespwa fe viv.
Hope makes us live.
A Haitian proverb

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/11/2001 2:24 AM (GMT -6)

Yo Whaaasssuuupp:

If all you are saying is that we need to recognize that FOR THE TERRORISTS there is no distinction between what they DO and what they BELIEVE, your point is well taken. But for precisely this reason it is important FOR US to DISTINGUISH between what THEY do and what OTHERS believe who adhere to the religion THE TERRORISTS say they believe in.

This is NOT a war against Islam, as such: it is against Terrorists who HAPPEN to do what they do in the name of Islam.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 10/11/2001 07:25:32 AM

27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual