A delusion that persists in the Western world today is that criticism of Islam is intolerant, bigoted, and possibly racist in its essential connotation and should be avoided for a more tolerant and open-minded approach. This wave of overly political correctness may be a result of the persistent victimization of Muslims at the hands of ignorant hate-mongers who target individuals rather than ideologies. The misguided compensation for this has been guilt-driven platitudes that applaud the apparent diversity that Islam brings to the tapestry of American multiculturalism .
It is a fact, of course, that M
uslims are persecuted for their identity – A recent report by the Gallup Center for Islamic Studies found that “more than 4 in 10 Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice towards Muslims”. This trend needs to be combated. However, to imply that ‘Islamophobia’ is a purely irrational fear is not a very honest contention. Islam, to its core, is something that modern society would rather revile than embrace, and it’s no surprise that the natural reaction to this violent ideology has been one of habitual fear and hatred towards the people who claim to profess a belief in the same religious groundwork. The recognition of the demographic of moderate Muslims should be one that exposes Islam as the treacherous religion that it is, and that applauds followers who have abandoned it's wicked teachings for the more secularist, ethical values that are infused within modern society.
uslims are persecuted for their identity – A recent report by the Gallup Center for Islamic Studies found that “more than 4 in 10 Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice towards Muslims”. This trend needs to be combated. However, to imply that ‘Islamophobia’ is a purely irrational fear is not a very honest contention. Islam, to its core, is something that modern society would rather revile than embrace, and it’s no surprise that the natural reaction to this violent ideology has been one of habitual fear and hatred towards the people who claim to profess a belief in the same religious groundwork. The recognition of the demographic of moderate Muslims should be one that exposes Islam as the treacherous religion that it is, and that applauds followers who have abandoned it's wicked teachings for the more secularist, ethical values that are infused within modern society.
It is indisputable that Islam, like every monotheistic religion to date, is a religion rampant with violence and moral depravities. The peaceful verses of the Q’uran or Hadith are consistently outnumbered by barbaric stories sanctioning rape, murder and other atrocious crimes. Countries following Islamic/Sharia law are stuck in the Stone-Age while the rest of the world progresses forward. Indeed, in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the proud promulgations of the word of Allah are used to subjugate women by stoning them for adultery, slaughtering infidels for apostasy, and restraining society to regressive socio-economic laws that prohibit free thought and expression. The victims are always the weak and helpless – and one such case is that of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who has been under the sentence of death by stoning under Iranian Sharia law since 2007. Her execution still remains imminent as global protests surge against this impending move by the Iranian government.But watch any debate on violence in Islam, and the diatribe automatically turns to the interpretation and the contextualization of the violent verses contained within the Islamic holy books. Apparently, the terrorists and Muslim extremists just read these with the wrong perspective in mind, otherwise they would be peaceful, law-abiding Samaritans. Apologetic hogwash. Who is to decide on the right context or interpretation? The extremists consider moderates just as un-Islamic as the other way around. And how, exactly, do you take verses celebrating the holy pillage of villages, murder of innocents, and the rape and brutalization of women out of context? Claiming that this was merely due to the moral attitudes at the time must be downright insulting to Allah, who is claimed to be Al'aleem, the All-Knowing.
Let us shed our notions of politeness and be honest - Islam is NOT a religion of peace. This admission is crucial to winning any war on Islamic terrorism. The right path isn't bigotry, but neither is it denial.
11 comments:
I'm curious why you think Muslims in say, the US (approx 5 million), Canada(~700,000), or Turkey (75 million) are not militant Islamists marching in the streets or advocating violence. If the religion is intrinsically violent then all Muslims should be thusly affected.
The other night we learned from the MSA visitors their attitude toward church & state or toward violence is .. identical to our own. This too must be explained.
I would also add that Sharia law countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia are historical aberrations (according to many historians)and recent phenomena. Iran's revolution was in the 70's. Prior to that it was actually a tolerant, fairly modern state (check out the wonderful animated memoir Persepolis for more on this). The present and horrifying current state of Saudi Arabia also congealed only in the 20th century. Minority populations of Christians and Jews have often been tolerated in Islamic states going back centuries and sometimes to the start.
"Who is to decide on the right context or interpretation? The extremists consider moderates just as un-Islamic as the other way around."
The problem with this is that the extremists/terrorists are in a very small minority. So I suppose it's the moderates who decide.
Of course a vast majority of Muslims living in secular states aren't militant - one can't live and flourish in progressive society while holding on to barbaric traditions. With modern education comes secular values that moderate Muslims embrace, and so as any religious person must do, they cherry-pick their holy book to salvage any positive inspiration that may possibly be derived from it. They are Muslim only to the extent where they follow the bits of Islam that are compatible with co-existence.
Attempts to restore an Islamic State in Iran and Saudi Arabia in accordance with principles of the Sharia have been at the forefront of the political struggle since the very start. One would argue that the Muslim world has constantly experienced the pendulum swing between strict piety and religious leniency since the very beginning. The issues come out exactly when Islam incorporates itself within the very fabric of government - which, as you mentioned, has been seen in it's resurgence recently in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. The problem is still Islam, since the Q'uranic literature and the Sunnah explicitly sanction Sharia.
And while you note that Jews and Christians may have been protected as followers of the Abrahamic faiths, don't forget the Baha'i persecution has been systematic and rampant before the modern Islamic revolution even started.
With modern education comes secular values that moderate Muslims embrace, and so as any religious person must do, they cherry-pick their holy book to salvage any positive inspiration that may possibly be derived from it. They are Muslim only to the extent where they follow the bits of Islam that are compatible with co-existence.
But the cherry-picking is done by every group, including the extremists. You have implied that one is more "true" Islam than the other but this is a very big claim to make and one that requires a great deal more substantiation- it can not be merely asserted.
Also if only some Muslims in some places are violent, then you simply can not conclude the religion is the primary cause. If I tell you asbestos exposure causes cancer, but oh by the way 70 million people in country X were regularly exposed to it but as a group showed no higher rate of cancer.. then I'm just wrong. It might play a role or have some influence but I certainly can't say A causes B. It just doesn't.
The resurgence in Saudi and Iran is often seen as being caused by western imperialism which has threatened the military, political, and economic obliteration of their culture. Consider how the border states in the US have responded to a few too many taco stands popping up. A gradual, innocuous influx of Mexicans has turned Arizona into a jingoistic haven of fear and bigotry. And we're the "enlightened west". Now multiply that fear of cultural encroachment by a factor of a billion and think about how we, or the Saudis or Iranians or anyone else is likely to respond. Saudi Arabia is a lot more nationalistic than it used to be- just like Arizona is.
"The problem with this is that the extremists/terrorists are in a very small minority. So I suppose it's the moderates who decide."
Mat, I'm afraid that you will find as many, if not more Islamic scholars who add context, interpretation, and any other applicable filters to violent Quranic verses and are still led towards a violent and dominating world-view.
And while you may claim that extremists are in a small minority, this is based upon the numbers of moderate Muslims in the Western world who choose not to practice all tenets of their religion (and indeed wouldn't be able to do so even if they wished to). You are ignoring the vast majority of Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East whose voices are only heard when offensive cartoons are published or books are burnt. And while blame for this may be put on the media, I would contend that doing so is an overly convenient justification to placate the discourse and avoid the problem - hundreds of millions of Muslims following a literal interpretation of the Q'uran under the authority of religious scholars.
But the cherry-picking is done by every group, including the extremists. You have implied that one is more "true" Islam than the other but this is a very big claim to make and one that requires a great deal more substantiation- it can not be merely asserted.
Any follower of Islam would have to follow the holy books in their entirety, for these are claimed to be the divine word of Allah. And the preachings in the Q'uran and Hadith regarding martyrdom, jihad, blasphemy, apostasy, and the status of women would lead society to pretty vile ends. I am assuming that most moderate Muslims reject these parts of the books, just as a moderate Christians would never imagine following the Old Testament to it's fullest. Whether extremists are 'true Muslims' or not is hardly the question - what is clear is that their violent actions are directly sanctioned by the Quran and the Hadith.
You can find a number of websites exposing the wicked verses in these books - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Also if only some Muslims in some places are violent, then you simply can not conclude the religion is the primary cause. If I tell you asbestos exposure causes cancer, but oh by the way 70 million people in country X were regularly exposed to it but as a group showed no higher rate of cancer.. then I'm just wrong. It might play a role or have some influence but I certainly can't say A causes B. It just doesn't.
What you can say is that Muslim terrorists who are motivated by the word of Allah and the afterlife have been corrupted by their religion. Moderate Muslims in the West simply reject the violent parts of their religion.
Well written but I do have some qualms about what you are saying. The whole diatribe against contextualization being the apologists screen is just plain wrong. You talk about the barbaric punishments in Islam and how Saudi still uses them. Have you ever studied these punishments in depth? Not just reading a hadith that says do it, but looking at the successive generations of rulings on it that require extremely specific conditions to be met before a punishment can be applied? For instance, cutting the hand for stealing requires that 14 conditions be met and if even one of them fails to be met, the punishment cannot be carried out. An even more rigorous standard applies for the larger punishments. What I'm saying is that these punishments require a lot of due process that is not carried out in Saudi or Iran. They claim to carry out Islamic law but fail on an epic level. I've traveled extensively in the Middle East and have family there that have had to live under these oppressive laws. It is a system run by corrupt megalomaniacs. The religious police are half educated morons who use their power for bribes. They are not religious nor well educated about religion, just a power hungry group of nut jobs.
I urge you to research more carefully and perhaps ask Muslim scholars yourself. Many of the complains raised against "Muslim" countries have little to do with Islam and more to do with the culture of the country. For example, female genital mutilation is strictly forbidden by a MASSIVE consensus across all Islamic schools as are honor killings. Yet these are practiced in primarily Muslim countries. What gives? Well, India has honor killings among the Hindus, there are honor killings in China as well. It is not an Islamic phenomenon, rather it is isolated populations of people stuck in CULTURAL norms that were present long before Islam every came to the region. If given time (in the middle of a few weeks of awful loads of work and exams) I will back up each of my statements with relevant (and respected) sources if you wish.
As for using The Religion of Peace website as a credible source? Really? Among the sources I'll (I will do my best, I promise!) attempt to cite, I'll also counter some of the glaring flaws I've seen on that website over the years.
Cheers!
Hey Rubiks, you seem to be well-informed about this topic. If you are interested, we would be interested in your perspective for a guest blog post. If you have time, send us an email at UIUCatheists AT gmail DOT com
Rubiks, Generations of rulings departing from a fundamental adherence to the hadith and Q'uran are done despite, not because of Islamic doctrines. While the religious texts may not provide emancipation from the harsh penalties for seemingly moderate crimes, secular jurisprudence does creep it's way into the functioning of Islamic government. The resurgence of traditional Sharia law in the last few decades may strike a blow to this progress, though.
You mention the standards that a judge has to follow before ordering a thief's hands to be cut. To start with, do you not see an issue in inflicting such egregious penalties for crimes of such a nature? Would any other philosophy apart from the blinded fervor towards following a supernatural deity's (in this case, Allah's) command provide justification for such punishment? Rudolph Peters outlines these conditions in Crime and Punishment in Islamic law
1) The one who steals is sane
2) He has reached puberty
3) He steals equivalent to the amount (nisab) or more. The Nisab is one Dinar or ten Dirhams (i.e. 4.374 grams of gold).
4)The hand of a thief was not cut off during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah except for stealing something equal to a shield in value
5)He steals the article from a place that meets the requirements of security and safeguarding. This security is considered when the article is safeguarded by a guard or by it being locked in a place.
6)The article is in the ownership of another person at the time of theft.
7) There is no confusion in it (as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason).
8)It was stolen secretly (not by force, etc.
Ah, such rigorous standards indeed.
I agree with Mat - we would be very interested in having a guest post from you to learn in detail your side of the argument. Hope you find time to write something out!
Perhaps I didn't make it clear that the rulings were based on the punishments carried out under the Prophet. Not just secular scholars. These are based on hadith and other sources that recorded the actual punishment. I will get back to you about being a guest blogger and as I said before I will try to provide my sources soon. I'm currently in a group meeting that should run late into the night so I can't use this time to write a good argument :)
Cheers!
Rubiks
you will get very worst reply for what you are doing, you are threating a religion which conquered the world in past history and also will conquer in future with extreme peace, please don't do that. don't try killing innocent people.
Post a Comment