Westerners who defend the building of the controversial mosque at ground zero do so on the grounds of religious freedom. Such First Amendment absolutism in the face of a deceptive religion whose beliefs are totally antithetical to our own, ultimately works against the West and aids in our own demise. American values such as liberty and religious freedom are fundamentally at odds with Islam. Sometimes in order to preserve liberty, ironically, you must enact restrictions against those who would destroy it.
Many believe there is no harm in allowing a mosque, of all things, to be built so close to the greatest act of terrorism - committed in the name of Islam - on American soil. They don’t seem to grasp the larger implications of how Islam would view this, and what it means for America.
The following article by Raymond Ibrahim sheds much needed light on why this 9/11 mosque is so sinister. He offers a great deal of historical background into the two faces of Islam, and how the West is being duped into allowing what amounts to a shrine of our defeat and a call to continued jihad.
Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke “justice,” the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.
Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the “justice of our causes, particularly Palestine”; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: “Battle, animosity, and hatred-directed from the Muslim to the infidel-is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right-our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?” (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Of course, that Osama bin Laden-slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest-exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising. Yet the reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero-that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden-also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.
The very name of the initiative itself, “Cordoba,” offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque “Cordoba” is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies “healing”-a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement certainly suggests as much:
Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.
Oddly enough, the so-called “tolerant” era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)-well over a thousand years ago. “Eight hundred years ago,” i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids-ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda-were ravaging Cordoba, where “Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.”
A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?
At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba-the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque-was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true-and ominous-legacy of Cordoba.
More pointedly, throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.
(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the “Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury” if there was “any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,” for example, if he had dared pray there-this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)
Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, “Cordoba House,” it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word “house” suggests shelter, intimacy-coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean “region,” and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., “infidel region of war.” Thus, to Muslim ears, while “Cordoba” offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, for instance).
Words aside, even the mosque’s scheduled opening date-9/11/2011-has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad-believers are exhorted to “kill and be killed”-and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike. So while Americans may think the mosque’s planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A “new beginning,” indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists-mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization-on, of all places, soil sacred to America.
Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly “Western” region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours), just as, perhaps, the largest mosque in America will be used as a base to subvert the rest of the United States. And, the sacking of the original Cordoba was facilitated by an insider traitor-a warning to the U.S., which seems to have no end of traitors and willing lackeys.
Such, then, is the dual significance of the Cordoba Initiative: What appears to many Americans as a gesture of peace and interfaith dialogue, is to Muslims allusive of Islamist conquest and consolidation; mosques, which Americans assume are Muslim counterparts to Christian churches-that is, places where altruistic Muslims congregate and pray for world peace and harmony-are symbols of domination and centers of radicalization; the numbers of the opening date, 9/11/11, appear to Americans as commemorative of a new beginning, whereas the Koranic significance of those numbers is suicidal jihad. Of course, the two faces of the Cordoba House should not be surprising considering that the man behind the initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, also has two faces.
Going along with the historic analogy, there is one bit of good news: As opposed to the vast majority of onetime Western/Christian nations annexed by Islam, Cordoba, Spain did ultimately manage to overthrow the Islamic yoke. Though only after some 700 years of occupation.
I conclude with Roger Kimball:
The bottom line is this: Islam is a proselytizing, intolerant religion. Its aim is to institute Sharia as the “sole reference point for . . . ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community . . . and state.” That is the end. The means are multifarious. Steering commercial aircraft into American skyscrapers is only one tactic. Using and abusing liberal democratic freedoms in order to promulgate an ideology that is neither liberal nor democratic is less ostentatious but may in the end be more effective precisely because it is less dramatic. This is the lasting significance of the case of the Ground Zero mosque. It represents another step on the march to Islamize the West. [emphasis added]
Powered by FireStats
What well the muslims do if some one tries to build a Church next to the mosque.Well they say freedom of religion
‘Justice’ includes the right of people to practice their own faith. The ‘Shariah’ is a far more just set of laws than anyone gives credit for. They use the misbehavior of Muslims and say that their stupid, evil actions are actually from the ‘Shariah’ - whereas they are not. So ‘Shariah justice’ is not the horrible thing these biased writers make it out to be. But Muslims are misguided, these days.
Muslims never forced people to convert, throughout history. If they did, it is not accepteble. The Qur’an forbids it. Belief must be sincere. Muslims also never ’slaughtered’ people. If you read his reference link to the “Al-Mohad”, it makes a general statement not backed up by any actual occurance of forced conversion, exile or slaughter. Then the Al-Mohads were replaced by other Muslims, the article continues, and the “Jews were allowed to practice openly again”. The Turks certainly did do a number on the Armenians - but that was at a much later time when they were very corrupt and had fallen away from Islamic practice almost completely.
The Kaabah in Mecca was built by Abraham for the worship of the One God and was later filled with idols. The Temple Mount had been destroyed by the Romans, centuries earlier. It was sacred to Muslims from the very beginning of the message of Muhammad (Muslims used to face Jerusalem - before they were ordered to face Mecca). It is the place where Muhammad ascended from to meet with all the Prophets, and then returned to. The other two are mentioned but there are no mentionings of the thousands of other cities Islam became dominant in. I have never heard that we Muslims have a tradition of building mosques ‘atop the sacred sites of the vanquished’. This is the first time I hear such a thing.
Verse 9:111 refers to fighting for the sake of God as being part and parcel of the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur’an. Note that the disciples of Jesus did actually engage in a struggle - when they took the Temple Mount and held it for three days, according to historians. Also that Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace. I have not brought peace, but a sword . . .” Struggle and fighting are natural results of belief in God - for there are always forces of evil (like the hatemongers who are working day and night to make the average American hate and suspect all Muslims) that try to destroy the faith in God. Fighting is a fact of life. The point is, then, to fight a just and fair fight; not to transgress or commit what does not please a just God. that is why there are rules of warfare throughout the Torah - just as in the Qur’an.
In conclusion - are we Muslims going to all be held accountable for what an extremist minority sect thinks and does - or what some in history may have done? Does anyone say that Christians must be pretending when they speak of God’s love - because of the many times the Church committed heinous acts of transgression against innocent peoples? I know for a fact that Muslims in America want peace. No one talks about forcing Islam on anyone (although we do speak of the truth of Islam becoming adopted by all people one day - because they will understand and, therefore, love the message). But then, even the Mormons say that.
The point is that we are being demonized because of this, that or the other thing. We are being dehumanized - over time. Just like the Third Reich dehumanized the Jews in preparation for what they did to them.
Haytham Younis :
Thanks for the comment, but you are either misleading us or misguided in your assertions. You say “‘Justice’ includes the right of people to practice their own faith.” Then by your own definition countries like Saudi Arabia have no justice since Christians may not worship or build churches there. Western justice should be applied to those people and religions that reciprocate that principle. The teachings of imams contradict much of the narrative you are presenting here. The traditions and foundations of Islam urge believers to “wage war against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be ruthless against them” (Koran 66:9). The mere fact that a justification can be made under Islam for suicide bombing - something impossible to do in the Christian, or Hebraic, or Hindu, or Buddhist traditions – is very troubling, and more so when millions of Muslims accept this.
Historically, conquered people under Islam normally were given the choice of dhimmitude, conversion, or death. Concerning “Almohad,” it specifically states that “Non-Muslims were subject to persecution and inquisition…. Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.” And yes, it does reference a specific massacre of Jews that took place (there are many). The point is to document the long history of violence and intolerance practiced by these fundamentalists who have a large following even today. You say Muslims “never slaughtered people,” then what do you call what happened on 9/11? History is filled with examples of Muslims slaughtering non-believers. As for killing women and children, Mohammad himself provides a precedent during the siege of Ta’if, where he used catapults. The Prophet’s response to the question of killing women and children, which of course the indiscriminate catapult would do, was “They [women and children] are from among them [infidels].” Here is Koran 60:4: ‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’
You say you have not heard of mosques being built upon other holy sites, but there is even physical evidence for this, as explained in this article describing artifacts discovered at the al-Aqsa mosque from Solomon’s Temple. You are incorrect on Verse 9:111, which many Muslims believe is a call to violent jihad against the infidel. Why else do you think the date 9/11 was chosen by al Qaeda? You can say they are misguided, but that does not change the fact that millions of Muslims do interpret this verse, and others, the same as terrorists. When Islam speaks of fighting for God, it is taken by many to mean literally. Jesus was speaking metaphorically about bringing a sword (he did not kill anyone), and this is not equivalent to what Mohammad teaches. I am not trying to “destroy faith in God,” as you say. I am a firm believer, as are many Americans. You contradict yourself in asserting the notion of a “just and fair fight,” yet you claim “Shariah justice” is not a “horrible” thing. But according to Islamic law, the concept of ‘justice’ may include killing non-believers, among a number of other violent acts of evil, such as stoning to death women for adultery (who are treated as property) and killing homosexuals. And what of the apostate? Killing an apostate is considered “correcting injustice.” You cannot say it is not a horrible thing, when clearly it is. No one is dehumanizing all Muslims. This article, and many others, makes specific mention of radical Islam as opposed to more moderate – non-literal – believers. Although, it is remarkable to notice how quiet the voices are in the Islamic community when it comes to condemning the acts of their coreligionists. So why do many Muslims embrace a fundamentalist teaching? Primarily because of an important but little known (in the West) doctrine of ‘adhab al-qabr, or the “torments of the grave,” which they believe they will suffer if they do not follow a literalistic interpretation.
To answer your question: No, not all Muslims are held accountable for what an extremist minority does. But the building of what would be the largest mosque in this country so close to the greatest act of terror on American soil, is a little more than a coincidence and certainly questionable. The Imam has made statements, and perhaps even has ties to those extremist groups you mention, that further cast doubt on the sincerity of his professed intentions. Any one item may be overlooked by itself, but when taken together as a whole – his statements, his desire to see America more open to Sharia law, shady funding, the name and history of Cordoba, the location chosen – it all points not to reconciliation, but conquest.
It would be a laughable comparison, were it not so absurd, to claim that Muslims are somehow being dehumanized in the way Jews were in 1930s Germany. Muslims are not being forced out of jobs, no laws are preventing Muslims from marrying non-Muslims, no laws require only Muslim doctors to treat Muslims, no law requires Muslims to sew a crescent moon on their clothing, etc. Let me further remind you that Jews were not committing heinous acts of terror, nor were they practicing a religion that called for continuous war against non-believers. There is no moral equivalence between the two.
The Qur’an is not the only source for Islamic understanding, there is also the Hadith, Sunna, and Ulema. It is written that Mohammad used and advocated trickery – to lie and deceive enemies in order to defeat them, especially when living among them. I think this is what you are attempting to do with your comment.
[...] more information concerning the double meaning of this mosque, click HERE. Print This Post Email This Post [link] [...]
[...] for such a cold, evil move on behalf of Islam. This is nothing but a showing of Islamic Conquest by building a Mosque, and then calling it Cordoba for their victory celebration after slaughtering thousands. [...]
Firstly allow me to touch upon this thing I have been hearing over and over again. Muslims are not permitted to lie. In the midst of war - not figurative war but litteral war - the Prophet said that it is permissible to do something which misleads the enemy. Why would he even have to say that? Isn’t it understood? The reason he had to spell it out is because of the strict rule, in Islam, that a believer does not lie. “Speak and bear witness to the truth, even if it be against yourself or a near relative” says the Qur’an. This is the most destructive weapon that people who have an agenda against Islam use. Once you convince people that it is a part of our religion to lie, then I guess you will have silenced us.
Secondly, before I get to my rebuttle of your comments, it is not laughable that those people who are the most vocal in their hatred for Islam would like to see done to Muslims simillar to what was done to the Jews in the Holocaust. Perhaps you are one of them, I don’t know. Their agenda is thus: keep Americans from knowing what Islam is and who Muslims are because if people did not feel threatened by Islam then they would not support Israel with full support. It is so obvious, is it not? Spencer, Geller, Pipes? They are looking out, not for what is good for America, but what is good for Israel. In fact, they endanger Israel and the furure of the Jews who wish nothing more than to have a homeland there. That’s another complicated matter, though, isn’t it?
In no way are Muslims exhorted to be ‘ruthless’ towards anyone. The correct term there is ’severe’; and as all other verses which speak of warfare, the words only apply to those persons who are directly involved in hostilities. The statement you say that Muhammad said is perhaps made up. Not only have I never come accross it, but Muhammad specifically forbade the harming of innocents. When some children were caught in the fighting at Badr, one of his followers shrugged it off because “they were children of the polytheists”. The narrative says that Muhammad’s face turned red. When the Muslims had returned to Medinah, he ascended the pulpit and addressed the believers saying that children are pure, innocent souls and it is forbidden to harm them. Then he went on to say that men, women and children who are not directly involved in hostility are not to be harmed. Further, by way of stipulating the protection Islam gives to other faiths, he stated that “the priest, praying in the church” is not to be harmed.
I am sure that there have been extremist groups who have violated these principles; and I would disagree with you that somehow the other faith traditions are immune to such extremism. Suicide bombings are a new phenomenon. Had there been such technology in the past, do you think a Christian crusader, or one of the Jewish zealots, would not have used it in this manner? I would also question your statement that ‘millions’ of Muslims agree with suicide bombing. I believe that the only Muslims given to such foolishness are frustrated, generally younger people, who do not understand Islam but only follow the commands of those who falsely guarantee them entry into Paradise through such an act. Forced conversion, finally, is forbidden by a clear text within the Qur’an. But you probably know that.
The quote about “enmity between us and you” is a reference to what Abraham and his followers said to their people. Just because there is ‘enmity’ does not mean that injustice is permitted. And this, by the way, does not apply to Jews and Christians - who worship the same God as Muslims. Two passages from the Qur’an: “Do not let the enmity of a people towards you move you to be unjust. Be just. that is closer to the fear of God”. and “Do not argue with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) except in a most polite way - except those who have committed injustices - and say to them: ‘We belive in what was revealed to us, we believe in what was revealed to you. Our God and your God are the same, and to Him we submit”.
Women are not property. Again you use the mispractice of ignorant Mulsims to alienate people by reinforcing this completely false notion. I mean even in divorce, men are not permitted to usurp the rights of their wives. The Qur’an states that a woman cannot be compelled in marriage, that a woman must retain what she received from her husband as a marriage - gift even in a divorce. The laws go on and on. A woman is not obligated to spend any of her wealth on her family, but the man must support her - even if she has a business of her own (which is also pert of Islamic law).
Punishments are to be given only in the most blatant cases. Where a person commits a punishable act in secret, Muslims are not to spy on him and try to catch him or her in the act. If a person is caught, then they should repent. If they do so, they should be left alone.
You would find, if you were honest and objective, that the laws of the Qur’an always reinforce justice and forgiveness. It is only that quotes are taken without the adjacent verses which help to clarify the meanings. But if you are already convinced that I am lying about everything, then there is no use for me to try to correct anything.
You know, the bottom line is this: whatever a person thinks the Qur’an says, or Muhammad said, or Muslims did, or some Muslims think or do, the only thing that matters is what the majority (especially if it is an overwhelming majority) of Muslims are all about. I have been practicing Islam, myself for twenty-nine years. That entire time I have been immersed in the Muslim community in America. I have also seen Muslim populations overseas. In all this time I have seen nothing but the kindest, most sincere hearts. In all my reading of the Qur’an and in all my listening to the lectures of scholars, I have found nothing but an impetus for justice and goodness. If Islam had been as the hatemongers are so adept at saying it is, I would not have remained in this faith. Whether you think I am lying or not, that is my testimony.
Haytham Younis :
You say lying is permissible in literal war, but that’s the point – much of Islam believes it is at war with the West and America in particular. How do we know which Muslims believe they are in a literal war or not? Supporters of war do not always do the actual fighting.
Since I do not know you personally, I cannot say for certain what is in your heart. No, I have no desire to “see done to Muslims similar to what was done to the Jews in the Holocaust.” This is a bizarre and unfair accusation. I already explained how all of the events that preceded the Holocaust are not happening to Muslims. I know that casting yourself in the role of the victim is a common way to get undeserved sympathy and distract attention from substantive issues. But there is no comparison. And since you brought it up, Muslims during WW2 offered to aid the Nazi “final solution,” and Mein Kampf is very popular in Muslim nations to this day. This is not surprising when Koranic verse after verse, hadith after hadith, castigates, condemns and curses the Jews; they are called “corrupters,” “exploiters,” “distorters,” “prophet-killers,” and even “pigs and monkeys.”
There are many points and examples I gave that you did not answer, from dhimmitude, to the date chosen of the 9/11 attacks, to the fate of apostates, to barbaric acts of stoning, to how Jews and Christians are treated in Muslim nations, etc.
You are either unaware or intentionally ignoring the Islamic concept of wala’ wa bara’ - Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty). Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them,” i.e., he becomes an infidel. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.” Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”
Besides the examples given by the author of Islam building mosques over sacred sites of those they conquered, I even provided a link showing archeological evidence, beyond the historical, yet you ignore the ugly truths.
You can try to draw attention away from the troubling parts of Islamic scripture by focusing on the more benign doctrines, but this does not solve the problem. Islamists use doctrinal principles for the justification of their militant jihad. Waging war against the infidel is understood to be an obligation.
Regarding the Crusades: The crusades were mostly a response (self-defense) against the conquering Muslim invaders. Not long before, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim had desecrated and destroyed a number of important churches—such as the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem—and decreed several oppressive commands against Christians and Jews. It is in this context that Pope Urban called for the Crusades.
Regarding suicide bombing: Again, it is not in dispute that suicide bombing is relatively new in terms of terrorist acts throughout history; it is the fact that a justification can be made for it under Islam, and has been made by numerous scholars. Do I need to quote prominent Islamic figures for you? You may say they are mistaken in their understanding, but they construct their argument from the words and deeds of Mohammad.
Regarding Israel: To suggest support for Israel is a kind of excuse for violence is preposterous, as America has helped many Muslim countries. In fact, second to Israel, the U.S. gives more aid to Egypt than it does any other nation.
If other faiths are even allowed in Muslim lands, they are oppressed at best. Look at how Christians in Egypt are treated. Such as Nabil Bissada, who was imprisoned and tortured in Egypt for facilitating the way for Muslims to convert to Christianity, a television show called I Was a Prisoner explores the lack of human rights in Muslim countries. The show can be found on the Arabic satellite station Tarek TV. Islamic law is Egypt’s “primal source of legislation,” but the Hanafi school in particular, which is dominant in Egypt: rather than kill apostate women outright, the “lenient” Hanafis recommend that women be beaten (the government official took care of that) and then imprisoned in their homes (the Muslim cleric has seen to that) till they see the “error of their ways,” and return to Islam.
Why don’t we see Jews immigrating to Islamic countries and constructing synagogues? Because they will be slaughtered, and you know it. Yet, Muslims are allowed to build mosques in Israel and worship freely.
Regarding the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered Uqba to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” he cried with anguish. “Hell,” replied the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
Regarding the inhabitants of Ta’if’, their only ‘crime’ was that they refused to submit to Muhammad by adhering to his “guidance.” So Muhammad and his followers set fire to the fortifications and used catapults to kill innocent men, women, and children. (The source can be found: Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.)
Osama bin Ladin explains what Islamic justice means:
So are we to believe the words of a convert, who in all likelihood was given a cherry-picked and soft version of Islam? Or the words of life-long, generational Muslims and Jews who can read Arabic and ancient Hebrew, which I presume you cannot? Authorities like Anwar al-Awlaki, Aymin al Zawahiri, and Ibn Kathir for instance would disagree with you and say you are not practicing Islam correctly. Moreover, everything written in Islamic texts is generally taken literally. One of the most renowned Muslim clerics of modern day jihadists, Ibn Taymiyya, has written at great length describing violent jihad as the ultimate expression of “love.” To further show how much literalism exists in Islam, one of the most authoritative institutions, al-Azhar, recently issued a fatwa prompting women to “breastfeed” strange men!
Yes, millions do believe in the violent, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam as was witnessed following 9/11, with dancing in the streets by huge crowds of Muslims the world over. I agree with you that the extremists are a minority, but a minority of one billion still numbers in the millions. Of course there are extremists in practically every religion, but the level of extremism is not the same – we do not find Christians or Buddhists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. It is a fact that Muslims commit the vast majority of terrorist acts, and their explanations are almost always grounded in scripture.
I quote from this article:
And what of a woman who accuses a man of rape? Does not most Islamic jurisprudence require 4 male witnesses or she has no legal grounds? And what of honor killings?
Yes, the three major religions worship the same God. But there are very important differences, as between Bible and Qur’an. I quote: “The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.”
Ultimately, it does not matter what either of our interpretations are. What matters is that there are many Muslims, and prominent authorities, who do interpret Islamic texts to condone perpetual jihad against non-Muslims until they submit.
I would like to believe your testimony about Islam preaching forgiveness and justice, but when one considers the sheer volume of violent acts, whether bombing a nightclub in Bali or blowing up thousand year-old Buddhist statues (none of which has anything to do with the US or Israel), it’s hard to see. You cannot haphazardly use the word ‘justice’ when it has a very different meaning to Muslims compared to Westerners. Islam needs to enter the 21st century and undergo a reformation like the other major religions have.
The mere fact some of your coreligionists can make an argument – right or wrong – for violent jihad and the murder of innocents should have kept you away from Islam. We find no analogous movements in other religions today.
This is EXACTLY what the above article and SteveK were alluding to. Haytham Younis is NOT misguided. He is DELIBERATELY trying to mislead us. The modern Quran is very different than it was in the times immediately after Muhammad’s time. The more temperate even gentle sounding passages are all superseded by later passages, like the ones that call for violent Jihad. The problem is, the Quran is no longer in the sequential order in which it was written. It is now arraigned from shortest verse to longest verse. There is no way to tell which are the earlier verses. It has no become worthless with respect to a logical timeline.
There is absolutely NO correlation between Western law and Sharia law. The tenants of Sharia are nothing less the cruelly barbaric, genital mutilations, stoning people, cutting off hands…etc. Google Sharia Law and read it for yourself! These radical usurpers can and will use the whip of political correctness to shame us into allowing this mosque to be built on the ashes of 9/11. The push for Sharia will not be far behind. THIS WILL BE OUR EVENTUAL DOWNFALL! WAKE UP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!
[...] Topical question, indeed. Since similar labels have been thrown around over the cordoba mosque scandal. [...]
Please join your fellow Americans speak out against the ground zero mosque, We will be in NYC this 9/11. Check out the Facebook page SIOA, or Stop the Islamization of America. They are hosting the rally, we have top speakers fron international and nationwide resources. If you would like to attend but have transportation limitations, or would like to offer help please visit the Ground Zero Transportation Exchange page.
[...] will welcome it with open arms, as not to offend. Here’s an interesting take on the debate… Ground Zero Mosque: Hidden Meaning for America, But Not Islam | The National Scene __________________ [...]