 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/18/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have mentioned before that I believed that whether or not the Gulf War II will be justified or not depends on what happens in its aftermath and this is open to the choices we make.... Today, in the Washington Post, there was an article that can be found at the following web-site...
Iraqi Muslims Protest Against Foreign Troops
Demonstrators Call for Establishment of an Islamic State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50762-2003Apr18.html
I think it will take the wisdom of Solomon to balance giving more and more freedoms and autonomy to the Iraqis, letting them rule as they see fit(which is the essential aspect of Reconciliation, accepting the distinctness of the other and giving them the power to be distinct), while retaining some control for the US/Britain and UN and(even more importantly) legitimizing that control in the eyes of the Iraqis and Arab-Muslim World.
I think that some control must be retained because of the Problem of Order. In the post-9-11 world, we must be wary of the support of terrorism. Iraq was a major funder for Palestinian militancy, that aid directed at encouraging violent protesting/bombings must be reduced to ease the tensions between these two countries so peace-talks can progress. Also, the education promoted among the Iraqi people shouldn't be of the sort depicted in the movie "Kandahar" whereby male students are chanting the Koran over and over again, breaking only to rehearse knowledge of how to use modern weaponry. This sort of Islamic teaching must be discouraged if possible and other aspects of Islamic law that came into being with the Ayatollah, such as the killings of prostitutes, which concentrate too much authority in religious leaders and do not permit civil liberties must be discouraged. In short, we must ensure that there is an autonomy between the state and mosque in Iraq.
I think ideally this would permit the West to be an impartial third party for resolving disputes between the different groups within Iraq and forcing these inevitable disputes to be resolved non-violently.
How do we legitimize this control in the eyes of the Arab/Muslim world? We must be very judicious in how any of the revenues from Oil will be used. We must increasingly give more and more autonomy/control to the Iraqi peoples. We must respect their muslim codes and not export the filthy morals promulgated by our mass media. I also think we Christians should model the importance of Separation of Church and State and how that means their autonomy.
As mentioned in the letter I wrote to Prism in the topic on "How do we "solve" the Problem of Evil", I think a political alliance between socially conservative Christians and Muslims that would play the two main parties off of each other could accomplish the following: discouraging pornography(through increased taxation),
prostitution(better enforcement of penalties on its patronage), a banning on the advertisement of alcohol(similar to what is done currently in France, where people still drink, you just don't have commericals of blondes in bikinis selling bad beer), the reduction
of poverty(perhaps, through increase earned income tax-credits), improvement of inner-city education(perhaps, also allowing for some choice with regard to inner-city schools. Though, this must be accompanied with regulation of how schools select students and a general increase in funding so that the competition isn't predatory) as well as giving Muslims more sway over how the U.S. government
handles the post-war management of Iraq(In general, I think that when the Arab-Muslims see that their fellow Muslims have more influence over the Government of the US, they will be more willing to accept the US Government's influence.), ensuring the enforcement/compliance with Campaign Finance Reform(to prevent Freedom of $peech from crowding out other forms of speech), bleeding Hollywood's ability to propagate its hedonistic secularism to the rest of the world through imposing a progressive tax on the advertisement/marketing of movies and promoting a national referendum on the legal redefinition of when human life begins as at 24 weeks(as currently is law in New York), which will require like an 80% of the US population to pass(the supra-majority requirement guarantees pro-choicers that this compromise will not lead to the slippery slope of making all abortions illegal since it is unlike that 80% of the US will believe human life begins at conception any time in the near future) and, finally, seeking to
ensure a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians by guaranteeing that the US Government will be autonomous from both of these groups.
I think this would be accomplishable. The US electorate is basically split 50-50 so any group that is cohesive in their goals and autonomous from both parties should be able to play the main parties off of each other. This will result in both parties bidding to win the support of this group.
The Republican Party has taken for granted the social conservative vote for too long and spent its political capital primarily on economic conservative issues, which as a matter of fact are often in opposition to social conservative issues(since "free" markets often play heck with social relations).
If the state of Democracy improved in the US and we became less the exporter of values opposed by both devout Muslims and Christians, then I think this would go a long way to promoting reconciliation between the two faiths. This will ease the tension and the grip of fundamentalism on Islam. Then, they will reexamine their histories and see that the Koran probably was not written at Mecca, Mohammed likely did not intend to start a new religion, and this will promote the formation of an Islamic form of Christianity, analogous to the Messianic Judaism that has been able to come into existence in the US.
But first we must remove some of the barriers by being willing to suffer on the behalf of the Iraqi Muslims and engaging with the political process to reduce the influence that many very secular groups currently have on it, which colors how the US and Christianity is perceived by the Muslim World.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/18/2003 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is the article I gave a link for above...
Iraqi Muslims Protest Against Foreign Troops
Demonstrators Call for Establishment of an Islamic State
By Thomas W. Lippman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 18, 2003; 12:05 PM
Tens of thousands of Iraqi Muslims took to the streets of Baghdad after Friday prayers today to demand the departure of U.S. and other foreign troops and the establishment of an Islamic state.
The demonstration was peaceful, news agencies reported, but it provided dramatic new evidence that the ouster of Saddam Hussein's secular government has unleashed pent-up religious sentiment, especially among the country's long-repressed Shiite Muslim majority. In the absence of strong government, Islam often provides the organizing principle, and the civic institutions, of Muslim societies.
Converging from several mosques, the demonstrators carried banners with such slogans as "No Bush, No Saddam, Yes to Islam," and "No to America, No to Secular State, Yes to Islamic State." Organizers said the demonstrators included both Shiite Muslims and Sunnis, who represent the majority branch of Islam is most Muslim countries but a minority in Iraq.
"We are Sunni and Shiite brothers, we will not sell this nation," some of them chanted, according to the Reuters news agency.
Shortly afterward, a cable television network based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, showed startling tape of a Baghdad demonstration of an entirely different kind: cheering young men crowding joyfully around a beret-clad figure said to be Saddam Hussein. The TV network said the video was shot in Baghdad on April 9, the same day as the famous statue-toppling scene that marked the downfall of his rule, and two days after U.S. warplanes dropped four huge bombs onto a Baghdad building where Hussein was believed to be.
In the video footage, the man said to be Hussein is shown smiling as he walks among a crowd of cheering supporters, many of them brandishing rifles, and then climbing onto the hood of a car to greet them.
There was no way to confirm independently that the person shown was Hussein, although the resemblance was strong and the man shown was accompanied by another who appeared to be Qusay Hussein, the deposed leader's son. Nor was there any way to know when the video was shot, or why -- if the April 9 date is accurate -- Abu Dhabi TV waited nine days to release it.
The video was said to have been shot near the Adhamiya mosque in northern Baghdad. If genuine, and if shot on April 9, the video would appear to confirm the accounts of residents of that neighborhood, who have told journalists that Hussein was there for about half an hour on that fateful Wednesday, and then drove away in a convoy without saying where he was going.
The condition and whereabouts of Hussein and his two sons are unknown. They are at the top of a list of 55 military officers and officials of the Baath Party, the former ruling party, whom U.S. military authorities are trying to detain. The capture of one of those 55 was announced today by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks at the U.S. Central Command's daily briefing in Qatar.
According to Brooks, Samir Abdelaziz al-Najim, a senior Baath official and a veteran comrade of Hussein, was handed over to U.S. forces last night by Iraqi Kurds near Mosul, in northern Iraq. Najim, a former oil minister and ambassador to several countries, was identified as a senior member of the Baath Party's hierarchy and party boss in eastern Baghdad.
He was the Four of Clubs in the deck of playing cards depicting the 55 wanted officials that U.S. military authorities distributed last week. He is the fourth of the 55 to be taken into U.S. custody, after two of Hussein's half brothers and his senior science adviser.
"All the members of that list of 55 have useful information about the inner workings, the inside of this regime, and, more importantly, some of its actions and decisions that have been taken over time," Brooks said. "That relates to some of the atrocities committed against the population. That relates to weapons of mass destruction. That relates to links to terrorism. All these things we believe we'll find as we find these additional key regime leaders."
Brooks declined to say where the four are being held, or under what conditions. Military officials are building a tent encampment in southern Iraq where prisoners of war are to be held, but senior political figures are unlikely to be sent there. The prison encampment has a planned capacity of 24,000, but so far the United States and its allies have reported the capture of fewer than 8000.
A group of more than 900 was released today, the Pentagon announced, after military authorities determined that they were noncombatants who had gotten caught up in the fighting.
One mystery the 55 senior officials might unravel is why no warplane of the Iraqi Air Force ever took off during more three weeks of combat. Australian military authorities announced today that their troops had found 51 Mig fighter planes hidden at an airfield in western Iraq.
Lt. Col. Mark Elliott told reporters in Qatar that the some of the planes were buried, others were hidden in buildings or under camouflage netting. They were apparently undamaged and could have engaged U.S. British planes, which were virtually unchallenged as they pummeled Iraqi troops and defensive installations.
Last week Brooks reported that U.S. troops had found another 15 undamaged combat planes at an airfield near Baghdad. More will probably be uncovered as U.S. and allied troops continue to enter new areas of Iraq, Brooks said today.
Much of his briefing focused on the urgency of restoring electricity throughout Iraq. A lack of electricity has crippled the country's hospitals, communications networks and water pumping stations. Partial service has been restored in the northern cities of Irbil, Dohuk and Sulaymaniyah and in some parts of Baghdad, Brooks said, but full service in Baghdad is still some days away, at least. He said a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers team headed by Brig. Gen. Steven Hawkins has begun to inspect Baghdad's power plants, which are not functioning even though mostly undamaged in the war.
"The team met with [Iraqi] power board members and technicians, encouraging them to return to work and to restore power to the people of Baghdad.," Brooks said. "As of today, in Baghdad, six diesel-operated plants are online and generating power, and the south Baghdad power plant has resumed operations."
Asked about the religious demonstrations in Baghdad, Brooks said, "We think people will have the right to demonstrate in a free Iraq," which is the position taken earlier by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials.
"While there will be some that want to see a departure of the [U.S.-led military] coalition, some would like to have that so they can try to return power to the way it was," Brooks said. "Others may want to [demonstrate] just to remind us that this is Iraq for the Iraqi people. And we really don't need a reminder on that. We're quite aware of that and we respect that."
Nevertheless, there are growing indications that the new freedom of Iraqi Shiites to assert themselves politically and make common cause with Shiites in other countries could have regional implications that might not be favorable to U.S. interests, especially in relations with Iran.
A United Nations aid convoy carrying drinking water entered parched southern Iraq today from Iran, where Shiite Islam is the official religion. It was the first such traffic since the two countries fought a devastating war in the 1980s.
And in Beirut, Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah -- a senior Shiite theologian and spiritual leader of the Hezbollah guerrilla group -- urged Iraqis to rebuild their country on their own, without "occupation" by the United States and Britain. "Remember that your country was a free country that has resisted occupation throughout history," he urged Iraqis. "Don't let anyone permit the occupation."
The process by which Iraq's political future will be determined and the U.S. military role ended has not yet been defined. In his first public appearance in Baghdad today, opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi -- whom many Iraqis believe to be Washington's choice as the country's new leader --said he expects an Iraqi interim authority to take over most government functions from the U.S. military in "a matter of weeks rather than months."
Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, predicted that the political process of establishing a permanent new government under a new constitution would take two years, but was vague about how an interim government would be established, the Associated Press reported.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/18/2003 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I would also add that one should also try to include Conservative Judaism in such a movement and that another issue worthy of activism would reform of the divorce law. The current no-fault divorce law has made it far too easy for successful middle-aged males to ditch their first wives for younger women. I know there were some good reasons for establishing this law in the first place, but I think we can do better at trying to constrain sinfulness some through laws that make such temptation more difficult.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/19/2003 6:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a Boondocks comic-strip that illustrates how much is riding on how deal with the post-war situation. I have to say that, absent strong political pressure and scrutiny, I don't trust the Bush Administration to do the right thing wrt the Iraqi people and I think Christian-Muslim relations may be strongly effected by what we end up doing.
http://www.ucomics.com/cgi-bin/sendtoafriend/getpostcard.cgi?site_ref=ucomics&MsgID=dd8d1a9e356734099be401df30f0913a
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/19/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | |
This article makes some very good points about how Christian Organizations working in Iraq do need to tread a fine-line and look to the future if anything...
dlw
The True Good Samaritans
April 19, 2003
By ROBERT PYNE
The question is not whether Franklin Graham or anyone else
should help his fellow human beings. Rather, the question
is how.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/opinion/19PYNE.html?ex=1051784187&ei=1&en=a860e111525caa14
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 4/23/2003 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a good NewsHour story on how Religion and Politics are growing more intertwined in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/religion_04-22.html
GWEN IFILL: Shiite Muslims-- estimates say up to a million of them-- clogged the roads into the Iraqi city of Karbala. The pilgrimage banned for nearly three decades by Saddam Hussein, mourns the death of one of the religion's most revered saints.
HOVA AL AWI (Translated): We are expressing ourselves freely. And we are enjoying it despite the execution of our sons, killed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. What is gone is gone. I lost seven sons.
GWEN IFILL: Today's walking pilgrimage marks the end of a 40-day period of mourning over the seventh-century martyrdom of the imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad. The Shiites are a minority in the Arab world, but a long- repressed majority in Iraq, where Saddam's Sunni Muslims controlled the government. Sixty to sixty-five percent of Iraqis are Shiia. The Sunni and Shiite sects split in the year 680 in a battle over who should succeed the prophet Muhammad.
The mass chanting and chest slapping seen on the march to Karbala today is a Shiite ritual of atonement. Some men cut their heads with swords, symbolizing the imam Hussein's beheading. His tomb now lies beneath the gilded dome of the great mosque of Karbala, one of the holiest shrines in the Shiite faith. The tomb of Hussein's father, who was Muhammad's son-in-law, is another holy site, in the Iraqi city of Najaf.
At that mosque earlier this month, an American-backed Shiite cleric was assassinated. Abdul Majid al-Khoei had returned from exile in London to help run Najaf. His killing was the most violent example so far of growing anti- American sentiment within the Shiite community. Many Shiites clerics feel they were abandoned by the United States when Saddam quashed a Shiite uprising after the 1991 Gulf War. Some of that lingering resentment was on display today in Karbala.
ABED MEHDI KARADALAI, Imam of Hussein Shrine (Translated ): The millions of people today express their loyalty to imam Hussein's principles in refusing all kind of oppression and in challenging the American and the British colonialism.
ALI OUENAT (Translated): We have just got rid of one dictator who has been ruling over us for 35 years, and we don't want any other imposed ruler. We are now a free people.
MAN ON STREET: People here, all Shiite, all Sunni, want an Islamic country, an Islamic government.
GWEN IFILL: To avoid inflaming the otherwise peaceful demonstration, U.S. troops stayed out of the center of the city today.
A revival of religion and politics
GWEN IFILL: For more, we turn to Hamid Dabashi, the chairman of the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department at Columbia University. He has written widely on Islam. Yitzhak Nakash teaches Middle East history at Brandeis University. He is the author of "The Shi'is of Iraq." His parents were born in Baghdad, and emigrated to Israel in 1951. He is an American citizen. And Caryle Murphy, who covered the Middle East for the Washington Post from 1989- 1994. She is the author of "Passion for Islam," and now covers religion for the Washington Post.
Professor Dabashi, is what we saw today, the long march to Karbala, was it a revival of faith, a revival of politics or both?
HAMID DABASHI: Absolutely both. It is impossible within Shiiaism to separate particularly under dire circumstances such as this between religion and politics. The Shiia minority has been repressed over the last three decades, they have been prohibited from expressing their religious rituals.
This is the first chance that they have had and as it happens, it coincides with one of the most sacred days in the religious calendar. And they have come out, and this religious procession now assumes the energy and performative and ritual power of its own, which will be very difficult to control.
GWEN IFILL: Caryle Murphy, which has the - he talks about things being so difficult to control - which has the greater force at a time like this when all of the these things are happening at the same time, the fall of Saddam, the rise of Shiiaism and then this holiday?
CARYLE MURPHY: Well, I think one thing we have to keep in mind is that although the Shiia are 60 percent of the population in Iraq, they are not totally united politically. They're religiously but not politically. There are, for example, many secular westernized Shiia in Iraq who would not support an Islamic state. And I think that one thing we also have to remember is that leading up to any full free, fair election Iraq, we hope that there will be a period of discussion between Iraqis to decide what kind of constitution, what kind of state they want.
And I think in that process, there will be a lot to discuss between the different ethnic minorities and religious minorities, and between the Shiia and the Sunni and the Kurds. So that when there is an election, hopefully, there will be a framework that most of the communities have agreed upon.
The diversity of Iraq's Shiite community
GWEN IFILL: Professor Nakash, the way it stands right now, if the Shiia were to assert their primacy in the politics in Iraq because of their 60 percent majority status, would this emerge as the kind of liberal secular democracy that the United States envisions, or perhaps a theocracy?
YITZHAK NAKASH: Well, it can be a mixture of both. I'd like to emphasize the fact the Shiite community in Iraq is a very diverse one. We have secularists, we have religious groups, we have urban dwellers, we have rural dwellers. And as we heard, we have Iraqis who haven't left their country and those who just came back from exile.
So we are going to see a transition period. We already see a competition between various groups within the community for power. It is very possible that in the short-term, we will see some sort of a mixed bag between religious figures and secularists, between Iraqis from within Iraq and those who just came back. It would be some sort of a confessional arrangement that would bring not only people from within the Shiia community but also Sunnis, Kurds and Christians, to form a government.
GWEN IFILL: Professor Nakash, expand on that for a moment. When we talk about the divisions within the Shiia community, especially among the clerics, who are the people we should be watching for who are in positions to either take power or at least compete for power?
YITZHAK NAKASH: Well, within the Shiia religious groups, first and foremost is the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf who thus far has attempted to distance himself from politics. Within the religious groups there are observant Muslims who have accepted the notion that there has to be some sort of separation between religion and politics.
But there are also those who claim that there has to be a fusion, there can only be a fusion between religion and politics, and they advocate an Islamic government. Within Iraq, we don't have that many senior clerics. One of the clerics who is now in exile, Muhammad al-Hakim has advocated a form of an Islamic government but let me say Hakim is an Iraqi. It would be very interesting to see what happens when he eventually comes to Iraq.
GWEN IFILL: Professor Dabashi, what do you make of that, the idea of who is going to be in charge next?
HAMID DABASHI: I think both Miss Murphy and Professor Nakash are right warning us that the divisions within the Shiia community are wider spread and there are more politically active and less politically active components of it.
However, the fact remains that despite the fact that the senior most figure among the Shiia community in southern Iraq, in Najaf is apolitical - Ayatollah Sistoni. However, the figure who is in Iran and has been in exile for the last two decades or so is the most militant figure among the Shiia communities and the estimates are a group of 10,000 Shiia devotees are ready to take charge and be involved politically.
And a call for an Islamic Republic of Iraq has already been made public, and they will be extremely important in the configuration of power and in... they banned and did not participate in post-Saddam Hussein configuration of power, which was called by the United States. And they are a contender. They will not be controlled. They are not in a position, in a political position to be controlled by anybody.
How much influence will Iran wield?
GWEN IFILL: Professor Dabashi, you just eluded to the fact that some of these exiles are in Iran. So explain to me exactly what influence Iran might have on the way this government is eventually formed.
HAMID DABASHI: It can have either a very catastrophic influence or very constructive influence. It depends which part of the Iranian government we are talking about. The religious right that is part of the Islamic republic which is undemocratic and has been preventing these fragile movements that President Khatami has been making towards democracy, they are very particular supporters of Ayatollah Hakim. And if they become the supporters of Ayatollah Hakim, it will have a catalytic effect between Iraq and Iran generating an Islamic republic both in Iran and Iraq, which will have catastrophic consequences for the future of democracy.
However, if the progressive elements within the Iranian government, those that have been very courageously and gradually working towards democratization within the confinements of an Islamic republic, if they become advocates of the Shiias in southern Iraq, it will have a far different composition and far more affected towards the future of democracy.
GWEN IFILL: Caryle Murphy, do U.S. forces or people who favor this idea of a secular democracy in Iraq, do they have something to fear from the influence of the Iranian influenced Shiia?
CARYLE MURPHY: Well, if it's the Iranian influence that Professor Nakash first mentioned, i.e., the more conservative Iranians, yes, they do have something to fear. But the second faction in Iran, the moderates, the reformers, if they have more influence among the Iraqi Shiias, there is less danger.
But I think we also have to remember that there's been an age old rivalry between Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Shiites are very nationalistic. They don't want to join with Iran for the most part. They are proud of their Iraqiism and this is something they'll have in common with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Christians when they sit down to talk about the future of their country. And I think that the nationalism of Iraqi citizens is still a potent enough force that there will be independent decisions made in Iraq.
GWEN IFILL: Professor Nakash, can you expand on this notion, that in the end, Iraqis will think Iraqis first even if there is a religious commonality there?
YITZHAK NAKASH: I think it is important to note that the Iraqi Shiias are by and large Arabs, they are Iraqi nationalists. We saw it during the Iran-Iraq war when Iraqi Shiites formed the majority of the rank and file Iraqi infantry fought against their Iranian core religionists.
But the thing we have to pay attention to, the big question now is whether the Shiia community in Iraq would be able to develop a strong leadership, a combination of secular and religious elements. A leadership which would be committed to the idea of the separation between religion and politics. A leadership that can unify the various groups within the Shiia community in Iraq, and also reach out to the Sunnis and the Kurds and assure them that the change of regime in Iraq will not expose them to Shiite revenge and tyranny. This is the big challenge.
GWEN IFILL: Well, that's a tall order. What do you think? Do you think that's possible?
YITZHAK NAKASH: I think if Iraqi history of the past 80 years is any indication, I think it is possible. Right now there is a power vacuum in the country. Things are very sensitive. It is going to be a delicate act. It is going to be a long-term process, but I think it is possible.
Could nationalism lead to a new Islamic republic?
GWEN IFILL: Professor Dabashi, what about U.S. influence? The U.S. as we saw in our piece earlier is kind of tiptoeing a little bit in this right now. A lot of Shiia are saying thank you for coming, but leave now. How does the United States carve out a way to create this new government without offending the very people it came to save?
HAMID DABASHI: It's an extremely difficult situation that the U.S. has found itself that may in fact aggravate the situation and inadvertently result in the formation of an Islamic Republic of Iraq. It is very important that a question of nationalism has been brought to the force -- that not all Shiia are unanimous in the position insofar as the faith is concerned, that Arab nationalism is also a factor.
But all of these factors are not under duress. That is, all Iraqis, not only the Shiias, the Kurds, the Sunnis, the other minorities, they have just come out of a brutal dictatorship and have ended up in what they consider to be a colonial occupation. Under this colonial occupation -- whether political or religious -- is accentuated, is aggravated and it is extremely difficult to imagine how, under these circumstances, when they consider themselves to be under military occupation, you could have a constitutional assembly.
Imagine 1776 in Philadelphia, people getting together to draft a constitution when the British are in the streets of Philadelphia. It is impossible. So the first thing that has to happen is this state of aggravated religious and political positions has to be eased and some neutral force, U.N. or whatever, come into the scene so under more normal circumstances, these religious and political and ideological factions can play out in the formation of a constitution, which guarantees not only the role of the majority, which are the Shiias but also the Kurds in the North and other religious minorities, including, say, for example, the Armenians that nobody talks about them, but nevertheless, it is a very important community inside Iraq. We are talking about the period of writing of the constitution, women's rights, civil rights, human rights, these are factors that need to be considered.
GWEN IFILL: Caryle Murphy, briefly has your reporting or your observations over the years of this community, do you think that the U.S. is prepared for all of these different divisions we have been talking about here?
CARYLE MURPHY: I think that they are not prepared for how difficult it is going to be. The Iraqis are very proud people, not just the Shiites, all Iraqis. And we've heard calls for the Americans to leave, not just from the Shiites.
I think the United States has to continually stress what it has up to now, that we are not there to occupy the country forever. We are not there to steal the oil. And I think it really would help the United States' credibility to get the support and the assistance of the United Nations when it does come time to sit down, call a constituent assembly and ask the Iraqis to draft a new constitution.
GWEN IFILL: All right. Everybody, thank you very much.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/8/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Evangelical leaders criticize others for Anti-Islamic remarks.
Top Evangelicals Critical of Colleagues Over Islam
May 8, 2003
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
WASHINGTON, May 7 - Evangelical leaders meeting here today
denounced as "dangerous" and "unhelpful" the anti-Islam
remarks made in the last year by leaders in their own
movement and proposed new guidelines for churches to follow
in relating to Muslims.
At the same time, the religious leaders reaffirmed their
commitment to proselytizing, and they accused mainline
Protestants and groups like the World Council of Churches
of holding "naïve" dialogue sessions with Muslims that
minimized theological and political differences.
The meeting came at a time when Christian leaders are
deeply divided over whether their goal should be to coexist
with Muslims or to convert them. It was convened by the
National Association of Evangelicals, which represents
43,000 congregations, and the Institute on Religion and
Democracy, a conservative Christian group in Washington
that often critiques mainline Protestantism.
Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of
Evangelicals, and pastor of New Life Church in Colorado
Springs, said to the 40 leaders attending today, "Since we
are in a global community, no doubt about it, we must
temper our speech and we must communicate primarily through
actions."
It has been more than a year since major evangelical
leaders, like the Rev. Franklin Graham, the Rev. Jerry
Falwell and the Rev. Jerry Vines, past president of the
Southern Baptist Convention, began publicly branding Islam,
or Islam's prophet Muhammad, as inherently evil and
violent.
Mr. Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham and head of
a global missions agency, Samaritan's Purse, said last year
that Islam was "a very evil and wicked religion." Mr. Vines
described Muhammad as "a demon-possessed pedophile."
The evangelical leaders here today issued what one of them
called a "loving rebuke" to their colleagues for remarks
that they said tarnished American Christians and
jeopardized the safety of missionaries and indigenous
Christians in predominantly Muslim countries.
Dr. Clive Calver, president of World Relief, the relief and
development agency of the National Association of
Evangelicals, told the group, "It's very dangerous to build
more barriers when we're supposed to be following one who
pulled the barriers down," a reference to Jesus.
In an interview, Dr. Calver said that when he was working
recently in the Mideast with Muslim members of the Red
Crescent relief agency, Mr. Graham's comments were
circulating widely.
"It's used to indict all Americans and used to indict all
Christians," said Dr. Calver, who is British. "It obviously
puts lives and livelihoods of people overseas at risk."
None of the evangelical or Protestant leaders who were
criticized attended the meeting today.
Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society
of North America, said in a telephone interview that he
welcomed the evangelicals' statements and encouragement of
interfaith dialogue - even the emphasis on sharing the
gospel with Muslims.
"I don't have any problem with that because interfaith
dialogue does not mean diluting the individual traditions
of the different faiths," Mr. Syeed said. "All it means is
that we respect each other's world view."
Those here said that they did not want to undermine the
missionary work of their fellow evangelicals and that they
would soon convene a session with those they had
criticized.
A spokesman for Mr. Graham said that he was in San Diego
for a mission led by his father and could not be reached
for comment.
Mr. Falwell, reached by telephone, said that he regretted
saying in a "60 Minutes" interview last year that he had
concluded after reading books on Islam that "Muhammad was a
terrorist."
He said he was unhappy to learn of today's event only
through calls from reporters, but supported the evangelical
leaders' call to temper the language on Islam.
"In this media-sensitive world, we must be cautious that we
walk a tightrope that does not allow offending others while
at the same time never compromising what we believe," Mr.
Falwell said. "At the same time we cannot expect hundreds
of thousands of evangelical church leaders to go silent
when somebody asks what they think about any religion, just
because those religions might kill their missionaries."
The guidelines for churches proposed today are notable for
urging evangelicals, who have not made a priority of
interfaith dialogue, to interact more with Muslims. But the
guidelines promote a fundamentally different approach to
interfaith relations than that used by mainline Protestant
groups.
The evangelicals emphasize that Christians should use
dialogue sessions with Muslims to "give testimony to the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it is our duty to do so."
The guidelines also urge Christians to use dialogue to
spell out the differences between Christianity and Islam,
and to call Muslims to account for the lack of religious
freedom in Muslim countries.
Alan F. H. Wisdom, vice president of the Institute on
Religion and Democracy, who drafted the guidelines, said
that much of the dialogue that Christians carried on with
Muslims across the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, was
motivated by "a genuine, perhaps naïve wish to be reassured
that they don't all hate us."
Mr. Wisdom said, "There has been the tendency to put
reconciliation above witness to the truth here."
Responding to the criticism in a telephone interview, Dr.
Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of
Churches, which represents mainline Protestants and
Orthodox denominations and frequently engages in dialogue
with Muslims, said that he agreed that each faith must not
dilute its own distinctions.
But Dr. Edgar said: "We disagree that you can't have
dialogue unless you talk about Jesus. My belief is that
dialogue is best built on relationships. People have to get
to know each other, to trust each other, to like each
other, and in some cases to even love each other before
real learning and listening takes place."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/national/08CHRI.html?ex=1053420851&ei=1&en=79aebebfc59833d6
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/8/2003 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with Franklin. It is wrong to ignore the evil side of Islam in the name of PC and "getting along," or perhaps "tolerance."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/8/2003 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I agree with Franklin. It is wrong to ignore the evil side of Islam in the name of PC and "getting along," or perhaps "tolerance."
The evil side of Islam? What about the evil side of Christianity with its Crusades?
I am on a Jewish list-serve that provides an Israeli perspective on what's going on in the Middle-East. You can join by contacting
am-israel-owner@yahoogroups.com .
They see Islam as unambiguously an evil religion. I prefer to state my position as condemning much of their leadership but not Islam itself. Mohammed, in all likelihood, never planned to start a new religion. When he entered into Jerusalem, he was viewed as a liberator by the jewish people there. It seems that much of what came to be Islam was developed after Mohammed's death(Including the idea that the Kuran was given to Mohammed at Mecca, far removed from the centers of mono-theism it is full of references to.).
I think it is important that we support proposals like that of Joseph Lieberman that would reduce the US's dependence on foreign oil by a third and give us the ability to pressure the existing Saudi Arabia and much of the current leadership of Islam into changing.
I think it is also important to ensure religious freedom to make possible an islamic version of Christianity.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/11/2003 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | This is a serious article that raises some serious questions about the form of Islam current in the Middle East. It makes me rethink my Reconciliation thing some...
"Let there be no mistake about (the planned) extermination (of all Jews in
1948): it was the publicly announced and repeatedly broadcast Arab war aim."
=========================
Does the US want Palestine to replace Israel?
By Jock L. Falkson
<mailto:falkson@barakonline.net> falkson@barak-online.net
May 10, 2003
Arab nations made war to eliminate Israel
It is essential to remind ourselves why large numbers of Arabs fled in 1948.
The main reason was their leaders urged and ordered them to leave.
Why? So they wouldn't be in harm's way as the Arab armies conquered and
exterminated the Jews. Let there be no mistake about extermination: it was
the publicly announced and repeatedly broadcast Arab war aim.
The majority who fled did so to facilitate that Arab war aim. They were,
after all, to be the beneficiaries of this objective. They wanted their
neighbors, the Jews of Palestine, to be wiped out by all means including
mass drowning in the sea. They wanted the free spoils of booty, treasure and
property. They wanted their homes, towns, cities and infrastructure.
Their greed was unconstrained by any quality of mercy. Conversion, which was
often an alternative in Islamic history to death for infidels, was not
offered.
el Nakbah will be avenged
How sad for the Arabs in Palestine that the Arab nations who had come to
help them execute this genocide were unsuccessful. How bitter, frustrated
and tearful the Arabs were at their impotence to exterminate the Jews and to
enrich themselves with their loot.
el Nakbah - the catastrophe - is the term used by the Arabs for having
failed to extinguish the Jewish state at birth. Its anniversary is
commemorated every year.
There is something menacing about 'el Nakbah'. Because it is understood to
mean a temporary glitch in achieving the genocidal aims of the Arab nations.
The second Nakbah
This was the result of the Six Days War (1967) initiated by Egypt's Nasser,
Trans Jordan's King Hussein, and Syria's Assad. Contingents from Iraq,
Lebanon, Algeria and Kuwait also arrived. Israel was confronted by an Arab
force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. This huge
army suffered a second Nakbah.
The third Nakbah
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 was launched by Egypt and Syria on Israel's
holiest day when most of the population were at prayer in the synagogues.
Caught by surprise Israel suffered considerable casualties but recovered to
counter-attack and win this one too.
Only a UN cease fire call, hurriedly orchestrated by the Russians on behalf
of their client states, prevented Israel capturing Egypt's Third Army, and
the fall of Cairo. Yet another Nakbah!
Israel Defense Forces overcome terrorists
The Israel Defense Forces has, for the present, overcome Palestinian
terrorism with new strategy and tactics. It has done what every political
pundit and armchair strategist pompously posited could not be done.
It has provided a military solution against the Palestinian terrorist war of
attrition. Not a total solution to be sure, but effective enough for them to
cry uncle (Sam!). This is the reason the Palestinian Authority has suddenly
agreed to accept the Road Map. Not as a genuine olive branch, but as a
lifeline to alleviate their distress.
Arabs continue to nurture revenge
The Arabs commemorate el Nakbah year after year, to keep their hopes and
moral high in anticipation of a glorious revenge. Mothers feed this ideal to
their children with their milk. The Islamic educational system in the Arab
countries methodically teaches Jew hatred and anti-Semitism in its schools
and universities. The Mullahs preach it most every Friday in their inciteful
kill-the-Jews sermons. The Arab world and its media are fully supportive.
The express purpose of all this agitation is to keep motivation for Jewish
genocide alive and well. So that one fine day, when Allah wills, the Arabs
will exact their revenge and wipe Israel off the map. Their atlases already
anticipate this. Invariably Israel isn't shown, only Palestine is.
Israel will not host its willing executioners
To force Israel to accept the return of our 'willing executioners' - the
original refugees and their descendants - would be a fatal, undeserved and
unforgivable injustice to our people.
It would be outrageous to give these diehard terminators the freedom of our
streets and cities. It would be the height of absurdity to expect Israel to
host these millions or even hundreds of thousands of vengeful foes.
These days the US would not knowingly host even one such Arab prospective
immigrant who had spent his entire life imbibing unrestrained hatred and
death dealing revenge for Americans! Yet the State Department wants Israel
to allow up to 3,000,000 of its enemies to return!
Road Map points the wrong way
1. The returnees would constitute a Trojan horse - a fifth column par
excellence in the event of another war or intifada.
2. The altered demographics would end the disingenuous vision of the
Road Map sponsors. Two states living side by side would be revealed as a
pipe dream.
3. The Jewish State would very soon be voted out of existence by its
Arab majority.
4. The illogic of having two states ruled by Palestinians, one called
Israel and the other Palestine, would be resolved by having one enlarged
state of Palestine.
5. It's on the cards that Jordan's Abdullah would lose his throne and
Jordan "anslusched" to a greater Palestine. (After all, over 70% percent of
Jordan's inhabitants are Palestinians.)
6. The chances of greater Palestine being a democracy are exceedingly
slim. Jews would be a defenseless minority at the Arabs' tender mercies;
with all its inherent dangers and consequences.
Don't expect Israel to go quietly
The Arabists in the State Department seem to have outfoxed the
conservatives. It would be a mistake to suggest that these intellectuals are
stupid. Yet being an intellectual is no insurance against making mistakes.
History is littered with the political mistakes of intellectuals.
Is it unthinkable that the extinction of Israel and genocide of its people
is part of the game plan of the Arabists in the State Department?
Sharon has already suspected this. His prescience is uncanny. He gave notice
months ago that Israel is not Czechoslovakia. The unspoken message was that
Israel would not go quietly towards that final solution.
It is surely not too late for the State Department to withdraw this
untenable "right of return". Israel and the US should not have to clash over
a matter of life or death for Jews.
****************************************************************
1. Please forward to your list.
2. Feel free to publish.
3. To remove your name click Reply and Send.
4. To add your name send email with "Add to list" in subject line.
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Another article...
America! Stand Up And Act Like A…..Woman!
By Steve Sharon
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
No one in America other than college professors, entertainers, Nancy
Pelosi, and a small cadre of assorted lunatics and media elite can
deny that the United States military performed valiantly these last
few weeks. Honor must be bestowed upon them for their conduct of the
war and for their conduct during war. All of America's servicemen
have been stars, regardless of the stripes on their sleeves.
America's success in battle illustrates the strength this military
possesses when it is given a clear mission statement from its
Commander in Chief, backed by a C3I (command, control,
communication, intelligence) system second to none, matched only by
the quality of its weaponry.
This triumph has been vividly reported by high-tech `embedded
reporters.' Americans were treated to real time coverage of its
military at war in a way unimaginable a generation ago. Other than
watching the seemingly endless parade of good looking women on Fox
News Channel, what has been more enjoyable to watch during wartime
than pictures of America's military performing with courage and
principal against an enemy lacking in both categories?
It should be perfectly clear to everyone that in this war the
coalition forces are the `good guys,' yet not to the Arab media. Al
Jazeera, which is Arabic for "Up yours, America," managed to even
denigrate the epic moment of the war when the great statue of Saddam
Hussein was torn down by Iraqi people and American ingenuity. After
first airing those pictures seen here so often, Al Jazeera managed
to find a camera angle which literally blocks out almost all of the
Iraqis celebrating the downfall of the statue, and the man it
represented, purposely turning it into an All-American affair. Ever
since 9/11, the Bush Administration has tried endlessly to present
itself as the Arabs' friend on Al Jazeera, even submitting
Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell to live interviews on the network.
The message was clear: We love Arabs!—and to prove it, we will even
support the creation of a new Arab nation right where Israelis live
today! So, this is the thanks America gets from Al Jazeera. Its
nonstop coverage portrays the US Armed Forces as plunderers of a
benign Iraqi nation. Al Jezeera's slant is similar to the nine or
ten other cable-satellite Arab news networks, not to mention the
venemous anti-American language in almost all of the Arab
newspapers. The Saudi media's depiction of the war was perhaps best
typified by a cartoon which portrays Saddam Hussein loaded down with
huge stacks of money in one pocket. That pocket is of course being
pillaged by several smiling US soldiers. His other pocket holds only
one coin marked sanctions which is tossed to several crippled
Iraqis. Numerous Arab newspapers on any given day manage to `blame'
Israel's control over George Bush for the war in which the US is
purposely targeting Iraqi citizens for death by the hundreds or
more. Iraqis loot their own heritage by tearing apart their own
museums, and it is America's fault. Everything is America's fault,
and America is controlled by the Zionist entity. But……
None of this stops the United States from its all-out pursuit of
Arab approval, something it will rarely receive. There is little
America will not do to earn the love of the "Arab Street." Every
major media outlet in America discusses the "Arab Street." Well, it
is time for America to wake up and realize something: This policy of
Crossing Delancy to find love on the Arab Street is futile.
Americans are truly loved in only one place in the Middle East, and
that is Israel, and all the concessions and excuses in the world
will not change this fact of life. America, it is time to seek your
true friend. Whether it likes it or not, America's partner in the
region is Israel, and turning Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, Towel Daddy,
or whatever the so-called Palestinian Prime Minister calls himself
does not change the fact that he is a terrorist and professional
Holocaust denier. It does not change the fact that Osama Bin Laden
is more popular in the Persian Gulf than any American fighting him
or his network. Most importantly it does not change the fact that
America was built on the Judeo-Christian ethic, and not Islamic
Sharia.
America would do itself well to realize that she has been chasing a
lover who will never love back, and she does herself best when it
lashes out with fury at the Arab leaders who scorn her as it has
these last few weeks in Iraq. Fury, but with a purpose. Ironically,
the Iraqi people themselves would be the biggest beneficiaries of
this fury, if they can ever get over their hate long enough to take
advantage of America's love.
You may e-mail Steve Sharon at steve@amisall.org
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/21/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Taken from Prism E-pistle sent out on the 21st of May
1. HOW TO SAVE IRAQ,
by Tony Campolo.
In rebuilding Iraq the Bush administration has
wisely invited faith-based charities and Christian
development organizations to take a leading role in
delivering the humanitarian aid that is so
desperately needed. President Bush knows that
faith-based programs can distribute food, give
medical care and provide education more efficiently
and less expensively than can government agencies.
Not surprisingly, a major controversy has arisen
over a prerequisite that some faith-based
organizations are establishing if they are to give
that help. One major faith-based ministry is ready
to commit millions of dollars in aid, but only if it
is given the opportunity to preach the evangelical
gospel message along while offering its charity.
To many in the Muslim world, such an agenda seems
like an attempt by Christians to "buy" converts.
They see American Christians as using their
financial power to lure people away from Islam.
Such "help" comes across to them as a form of
neo-colonialism whereby Western civilization will be
imposed on the Muslim world.
Some Christian groups have also raised their voices
against the practice of making humanitarian
assistance contingent on receiving the gospel.
These groups make the argument that followers of
Jesus should do good for goodness sake. They say
that Christians should feed the hungry, clothe the
naked and minister to the sick, out of love and love
alone, without even the slightest trace of religious
coercion or spiritual manipulation.
My own reactions to this debate are fraught with
ambivalence. On the one hand, I am an evangelical
who believes that we should use all legitimate means
to win the world to Christ, and I hope that the new
government in Iraq will guarantee our right to do
so. On the other hand, I think that using
humanitarian aid as "bait" to get people "hooked" on
Christianity will probably end up doing more harm
than good. Will the practice increase conflicts
between the Muslim world and the Christian
community? Will these growing conflicts result in
Islamic governments outside of Iraq putting more
restraints on churches within their borders, as well
as increasing limitations on the preaching of the
gospel? I don't know.
Moreover, while there may be nothing immoral about
providing help for poor people on the condition that
they hear the gospel, I wonder if that is what Jesus
would do? After all, Jesus resisted this very idea
when Satan came to tempt him.
In Matthew 4:1-4, Satan proposes that Jesus turn
stones into bread. The implication is that, by so
doing, Jesus would be able to get hungry people to
follow him. Jesus responds by saying, "Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that
comes from the mouth of God." Others may disagree,
but I think Jesus is suggesting that simply holding
up the truth about our magnificent loving God,
without any accompanying bribes, is sufficient to
bring people to faith. As one poetic theologian put
it, "It cannot be that any creature should know him
as he is and not desire him."
I believe that Christians should provide
humanitarian aid to Iraq without conditions, as
evidence that we love Jesus, and that we should
evangelize simply by holding up Jesus and allowing
people to choose him freely because of who he is. I
don't think we need to use bait or bribes. Jesus
put it this way: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all
men and women to myself" (John 12:32).
Consider what happened in China. Prior to the
Communist revolution, Western missionaries often
propagated Christianity in China by connecting the
receiving of food and education with the receiving
of Jesus. When the Communists took over, there were
only about 500,000 Christians in that whole vast
country. Then the missionaries were run off,
religion was outlawed, and the church was driven
underground. All this underground church had to
offer was the Savior himself. By all accounts, the
results have been astounding. Today it is estimated
that there are more than 40 million Chinese
Christians.
Let us remember what the Holy Spirit and the gospel
of Jesus alone have done in China when considering
what we Christians should do in Iraq.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/27/2003 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | This is a good article that captures the great diversity of views among Christians in the US regarding Muslims and Islam.
Seeing Islam as 'Evil' Faith, Evangelicals Seek Converts
May 27, 2003
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
GROVE CITY, Ohio - On a recent Saturday in a church
fellowship hall here, evangelical Christians from several
states gathered for an all-day seminar on how to woo
Muslims away from Islam.
The teacher urged a kindly approach: always show Muslims
love, charity and hospitality, he said, and carry copies of
the New Testament to give as gifts. The students,
scribbling notes, included two pastors, a school secretary
and college students who said they hoped to convert Muslims
in the United States, or on mission trips abroad.
But although the teacher, an evangelical preacher from
Beirut, stressed the need to avoid offending Muslims, he
projected a snappy PowerPoint presentation showing passages
from the Koran that he said proved Islam was regressive,
fraudulent and violent.
"Here in the Koran, it says slay them, slay the infidels!"
said the teacher, who said he did not want to be identified
because being a missionary to Muslims put his life at risk.
"In the Bible there are no words from Jesus saying we
should kill innocent people."
At the grass roots of evangelical Christianity, many are
now absorbing the antipathy for Islam that emerged last
year with the incendiary comments of ministers. The sharp
language, from religious leaders like Franklin Graham,
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines, the former
president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has drawn
rebukes from Muslims and Christian groups alike. Mr. Graham
called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion, and Mr.
Vines called Muhammad, Islam's founder and prophet, a
"demon-possessed pedophile."
In evangelical churches and seminaries across the country,
lectures and books criticizing Islam and promoting
strategies for Muslim conversions are gaining currency.
More than a dozen recently published critiques of Islam are
now available in Christian bookstores.
Arab International Ministry, the Indianapolis group that
led the crash course on Islam here, claims to have trained
4,500 American Christians to proselytize Muslims in the
last six years, many of those since the 2001 terrorist
attacks.
The oratorical tone of these authors and lecturers varies,
but they share the basic presumption that the world's two
largest religions are headed for a confrontation, with
Christianity representing what is good, true and peaceful,
and Islam what is evil, false and violent.
The criticism is coming predominantly from evangelicals,
who belong to many independent churches and Christian
denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention.
Evangelicals have always believed that all other religions
are wrong, but what is notable now is the vituperation.
"The Koran's good verses are like the food an assassin adds
to poison to disguise a deadly taste," writes Don
Richardson, a well-known missionary who worked in Muslim
countries, in "Secrets of the Koran" (Regal Books, 2003).
"Better to find the same food, sans poison, in the Bible."
This month, he is scheduled to speak on Islam at churches
in five American cities.
Most of the authors and teachers preach a corollary of the
Christian dictum to "love the sinner and hate the sin."
They assert that while the vast majority of Muslims are not
evil, they have been deceived by a diabolical religion
based on a flawed scripture that can never bring them
salvation.
Akbar Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic studies department at
American University, said he grew up attending Catholic and
Protestant missionary schools in Pakistan, but never heard
a negative word about Islam from the missionaries. Now, he
said, the new hostility to Islam and, in particular, the
insults to the prophet Muhammad have outraged the Muslim
world.
"The whole range of Muslims, from orthodox to liberal
secularists, are all lined up against these attacks coming
from the American evangelists," said Mr. Ahmed, the author
of a new book "Islam Under Siege: Living Dangerously in a
Post-Honor World" (Polity Press). "Unwittingly, these
evangelists have unleashed a consolidation of sentiments
for Islam. Even the most moderate Muslims have been upset
by this."
The push for conversions may backfire for the evangelists,
he said, since Muslims who may have been open to the
missionaries' presence feel their honor has been insulted.
In interviews, evangelical authors and lecturers said
their work did not denigrate Islam as much as share the
truth about Christianity.
Ergun M. Caner, raised a Muslim by his Turkish family,
converted to Christianity as a teenager and wrote, with his
brother Emir, "Unveiling Islam: An Insider Look at Muslim
Life and Beliefs" (Kregel Publications), which has sold
more than 100,000 copies.
"I am more interested in apologetics than polemics," said
Mr. Caner, now a professor of theology and church history
at The Criswell College. "Apologetics is defending your
faith, and polemics is critiquing others. A Muslim has the
right to to worship Allah, and I have a right to stand in
front of that mosque and tell them that Jesus saves. That's
the hope for Iraq, the hope for Afghanistan."
Evangelical scholars and leaders cite several reasons for
their quickening interest in Islam: the American defeat of
a major Muslim nation, Iraq, which may open it to Christian
missionaries, while other Muslim nations remain closed; the
2001 terrorist attacks, which led many Americans to see
Islam as a global threat; the greater numbers and
visibility of Muslims in the United States, and the demise
of Communism, once public enemy No. 1 for many evangelical
organizations.
"Evangelicals have substituted Islam for the Soviet Union,"
said the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for
governmental affairs of the National Association of
Evangelicals, which represents 43,000 congregations. "The
Muslims have become the modern-day equivalent of the Evil
Empire."
The National Association of Evangelicals called on
Christian leaders this month to temper their anti-Islam
oratory, saying it had been unhelpful to interfaith
relations, and dangerous to Christians spreading the gospel
to Muslims. While some evangelical leaders welcomed the
criticism, others bristled and said that it was not the
Christians but the Muslims who must stop the hate-speech.
Historians note that enmity between Christianity and Islam
dates as far back as the Crusades, the fall of Byzantium
and the reconquest of Spain.
"Keep in mind that Islam is the only religious tradition
that has ever threatened the existence of Christianity,"
said Charles Kimball, chairman of the religion department
at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., and
author of the book "When Religion Becomes Evil" (Harper San
Francisco, 2002). "That's deeply woven into our
subconscious, into Western literature and culture, and so
this image of an Islamic threat taps into a notion that's
there already."
The conservative evangelical approach to Islam is in stark
contrast with the "interfaith understanding" approach of
many Orthodox, Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant
churches like the Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans.
Since 9/11, local churches in these denominations began
inviting Muslims to explain their faith at a flurry of
interfaith events and dialogue sessions.
"God calls all of us to have an open mind and an open
heart," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of
the National Council of Churches, which represents many
Protestant and Orthodox denominations. "And many of the
people who are part of the National Council of Churches
believe that if judgment is to be made it needs to be made
by God and not by those of us who have divided ourselves up
around a particular ideology."
These churches acknowledge theological differences between
Christianity and Islam, but stress the common roots and
essential compatibility. They teach that Muslims are
monotheists, "Allah" is simply Arabic for God, and both
faiths share Abraham as patriarch.
But for many of the evangelical experts on Islam, these
notions are simplistic whitewash to paint over a real
theological divide.
At the daylong seminar in the fellowship hall of Southwest
Grace Brethren Church, just outside Columbus, the teacher
drew on his own life experience as evidence of Islam's
evils. While President Bush and others have depicted Islam
as a peaceful religion that has been "hijacked" by
extremists, the teacher said he knew better than to believe
that.
He spoke of a childhood friend in Beirut who joined the
Hezbollah terrorist network and showed off his victims'
severed ears. Another friend, he said, was threatened with
death by his father when he converted to Christianity. (The
teacher did not mention the Phalangist Christian militias
that helped stoke Lebanon's civil war.)
He did not tell the class who he was, and his
mysteriousness reinforced his message that Christian
missionaries face danger in Muslim nations. At least six
have been killed since Sept. 11, 2001.
"You can tell me Islam is peaceful, but I've done my
homework," he said, reeling off a list of Koranic
citations. "From the beginning of Islam, the sword brought
results faster than words."
Some of what he taught would be accepted by most
theologians: Muslims reject the Christian concept of a
Trinitarian God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Muslims respect Jesus as a prophet, but do not accept the
Christian belief that he is the son of God.
But he intermingled accepted facts with negative accounts
of Islamic teaching, history and traditions. The pilgrimage
to Mecca, he said, is a dangerous event at which people are
killed every year. Communal prayers each Friday are "a day
of rage," he said.
And Muslims even pray differently than Christians, he said.
"Muslims pray to get points," he said, "not to communicate
with God." Group prayer on Fridays is for "extra points,"
he said.
Pat McEvoy, a secretary at a high school in Columbus, said
she had known very little about Islam before the seminar.
Her school has an influx of students from Somalia, and as
she walked through the hallways she regarded these
immigrants as "a virtual mission field."
She said she felt an obligation to save them from an
eternity in Hell.
"If I had the answer for cancer, what sort of a human would
I be not to share it?" Ms. McEvoy said.
The teacher concluded by giving the students tips on what
to do and not to do to reach Muslims: Don't approach them
in groups. Don't bring them to your church, because they
will misunderstand the singing and clapping as a party. Do
invite them home for a meal. Do bring them chocolate chip
cookies. Do talk about how, in order to get saved, they
must accept Jesus.
"Our job," he said, "is not to make the Muslim a Christian.
Our job is to show them the love of Christ."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/27/national/27ISLA.html?ex=1055008881&ei=1&en=05649fbab7817e1d
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:12 AM (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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|