"Last month I [Rick Mathes] attended my annual training session that's required
for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the
Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their
belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic
Imam had to say.
The Imam
gave a great presentation of the basics of
Islam, complete with a
video.
After the presentations, time was
provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my
question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
understand that most Imams
and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad
[Holy war] against the
infidels of the world. And, that by killing an
infidel, which is a
command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in
heaven. If that's the
case,can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation,
he replied, "Non-believers!" . I responded, "So, let me make sure I
have
this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill
everyone
who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that
correct?"
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to
that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the
cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." I then stated, "Well,
sir, I
have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all
Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering
Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"
The Imam was
speechless.
I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend
when you and your
brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let
me ask
you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to
kill me
in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you
because I
am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"
You
could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. "
Now I don't know if this is true, but let us just for a moment assume it is. I think the Iman did Islam a great disservice. True, there is a jihad against infidels, but the definition the Iman gave was not totally correct. My understanding is that the world falls into three spheres; Islam, friends of Islam, and enemies of Islam.
Although the Iman said that all those that are not followers of Islam are infidels, that is not totally correct. If those unbelievers are friends of Islam, then they are not included in the jihad. The problem is, if you fall in the enemy sphere, it does not take into account indiviuality. America, consequently, falls into the sphere of enemies of Islam, even though Islam is fast growing in the nation.
So what does that mean? To me it seems that those fanatics who have overrun the religion of Islam are content to kill even their own believers. Islamic followers in America, at least the vast majority, do not hold America in the last sphere, but instead welcome the ability to freedom of worship. But how does their feelings of freedom extend to the fanatical leaders from the Middle East?
For those questions, I do not know. But it scares me that a religion can hold life in such low regard. I know that Chrisianity has had its dark days, and for that I am truly sorry, but at what time in history do people evolve past complete hatred? For my personal feeling, evil will always exist, hatred will always be bred. The only thing we can ask of ourselves is to try and not continue the level of hatred, but overcome it with strong efforts of combatedness. But those lessons are not easily contained in a list of "to do's".
The Muslim world is strong, and has great potential for great deeds. If only we could get the people who lead this religion to see their potential and forget about the hate.
Islam ; jihad ; religion
Yeah I'm not sure if it's true either, but I do think it very possibly could have happened.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, my wife used to work as a counselor at a prison. She witnessed something very similar to the situation described in your post.
During an Islamic service, which she had to get permission from the state to sit through, she heard a cleric say the very same things. Except much more gruesome. An investigation was warranted and now that cleric can no longer speak at that prison, but I'm sure he just went somewhere else to spread the hatred.
Are all Muslims like this? Of course not. But there does appear to be a battle waging within that religion that will forever change its course. Hopefully for the good of humanity and not vice versa.
Good post.
Your intentions are indeed applaudable. Believing in an uncaused evil is based on the naturalness and legitimacy of that which is deemed good. The issue here is not killing and the inverse. Rather, it is the extent to which the Islamic family, not being able to be represented by a state, has enabled their mass murder over decades via a variety of means. Some knowledge of history will go a long way in understanding the cause of 'terrorism' before one realises that a 'jihadist' is a patriot without a nation-state just as a 'patriot' is a jihadist with one.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to simplify matters and talk about the actions of the 'jihadist' and ask if it is just, i would say no. But i would also state that when we kill a person of another family, we cannot claim the moral right to dictate how they ought to react. The existence of the nation-state in its current form only allows representation by those who fit the UN's idea of a nation. If we consider the Islamic idea of a nation, and how this nation could never be represented and the U.S. called to task in the UN for crimes against humanity, we'll also began to understand that 'terrorism' is simply warfare not directed by the nation-state.
It's quite a complex issue and entails more than that i've detailed above.
MJ: Thank you for bringing a little legitimacy to the story.
ReplyDeleteInquisitor:
Although very well put, your ideas are misguided. There is no so-called christian state. The US is composed of Christian values, but not ruled by Chrisianity. Just like some of the Middle Eastern and West Asian nations are also set up by Islamic values.
No religion is to be recognized by the UN as a nation, simply because a religion is not a nation. Therefore you can't take the road of jihad as simply a patriotic act. It is simply an act of aggression and violence aimed at producing a desired result.
I want to thank you for your thoughts here, and welcome them more often.
As a side note to inquisitor, and not that I disagree with him/her because I'm sure the argument is valid, and likewise for any dissent to such an argument, but I do believe that the debate that Islam should have a state and those who fight for such are doing so as freedom fighters may be off target some.
ReplyDeleteThere are 22 Arab League nations, all of which are Islamic; most are total theocracies. How many more states do they want?
Is it about the independent state of Palestine or that other states exist which are not Islamic?
If the argument is that jihad exists to liberate palestine so that Islam will have a "state" then frankly the existing 22 might negate that somewhat.
Hello Craig,
ReplyDeleteThe religion of national patriotism underlies the claim of a nation-state to the adherence of its believers. Thus, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to state that the UN does not recognise religions as nation-states. It would be more true to say that nation-states are recognised as religions. Religion did not start with Muhammad destroying the statutes in the Kaaba. He just replaced it with another. The same would apply with the so-called 'separation of the church and state'.
The religion of Islam is a belief system, or what i would term, a global human paradigm. In this sense, it is no different from a nationalist one. What defines a 'nation' is not some arbitrarily imposed idea of a nation but the sense of familialarity in whatever form it takes, be it the simple family, the religious family, the proletariat family, the islamic family, etc. Any attempt at imposition would be construed as an attack on a particular person's idea of a nation, which, to him, is as much a state than any nation-state is to a 'patriot'. There is no scientifically verifiable reason why the latter is more real than the former.
As i had stated, my sister does not cease to be my sister the moment she steps across the border. Nobody has the right to determine the criteria by which i ought to 'decide' who my sister is. That is purely a matter for the individual to decide. It is due to the desire to respect individual rights, that i call for the ending of the nation-state which would enable Muslims to move on to being an 'interest group' of equal social significance than any other. This cannot be accomodated by the current national system simply because the Muslim feels a union with other Muslims despite the nation-state's boundaries, whilst the NS's boundaries do not allow empathy to maintain its value once it crosses the border.
Thank you for your questions Craig. It is such questions that awaken my sense from the complacency and docility that necessarily inflicts a voice in a void.
p.s. i have no right to be asked before i am linked, be it for either salutory or derisive purposes. Thanks for asking anyway:)
MJ,
ReplyDeleteI think what these people are seeking is not an additional state but one comprising the existing ones. Personally, it was inevitable that it came to demands for a state as these Jihadis have been told, implicitly, that if they did not have state, they would not be able to have a voice where it matters the most - the UN. Personally, i am completely against the formation of an Islamic state as this might lead to an escalation of global tensions. However, on the other hand, this would also mean that the Muslims would cease to have any reason for complaint as their states would have been vacated off 'infidels'. However, if they are faced with capitalist states, then the animosity would move on to the economic arena and this might mutate into violent forms.
Personally, i am for the ending of a nation-state and capitalism. But that is another issue.
Inquisitor, well put and understood.
ReplyDeleteBut, wouldn't the call for an Islamic nation-state in and of itself compromise the existing 22? Not to mention that of those 22, at least 5 or 6 are already Islamic nation-states. All of which already belong to the UN where they already have a voice; or at least as much as the next nation-state (which is where the notion of nuclear weapons plays heavily).
I guess what I'm getting at is that you define the violence by Islamic extremists from their inability to be represented by a nation-state. But they are indeed already represented by a state, more so than any Christian religion is. So, then, doesn't jihad become a call not necessarily for more representation but a call against anything that is not Islamic? Or is it all of the above?
Sorry, I'm not directing these towards you in a confrontational way, I'm really interested in knowing. Thanks.
MJ,
ReplyDeleteSeparate nation-states are incapable representing a nation indivisible - other than by sects. This arises from the fact that Muhammad did not bequeath his religious role to the state, and in effect, bequeathed it to the people. This is that which runs counter to any one state attempting to be a 'Protector of Islam'. Secondly, these individual nation-states, many of them at least, are only 'theocracies' in name but represent Bourgeois interests within a global socio-political framework that places them on different levels of a hierarchy defined by power. Thus, these nation-states, individually, are not able to always represent and defend the interests of the transnational Muslim population. Thirdly, due to the denominational fragmentation of the Muslim population, various denominations may form a majority in one state whilst being a minority in another. However, as separate denominations they occupy land across various nation-states and it is predictable that they would be offended when one of their denomination is affected in another by that government or a foreign one. Their conception of 'Self' does not coincide with the western conception of 'Self' which is delinated from another by nationality.
One solution is that nation-states in the Middle East be organised to coincide with denomination. However, since this cannot be effected due to the disparate regions that these denominations occupy, the next alternative would be to form a superstate where various denominations are immediately transformed into interest groups possessing equal rights. But even this is unworkable as the Muslim population is now global. This is why the formation of a global state is necessary to enable the entire global Muslim population to become an interest group themselves sharing equal rights with other interest groups. If this is not effected, the present crises results as the UN, a body structured to recognise only nation-states, is logically disabled from considering familial/patriotic consciousness that transcends the national body.
However, what you state about the 'call against anything that is not Islamic' will gradually come to be as the Muslim population is faced with opposition from a definable 'other'. This will lead them to synonymise their struggle for recognition in the face of our National State of Being into one that rejects outright anything associated with it. This is not unlike the Black Civil Rights movement in the U.S. that moved from seeking integration to one that sought to define itself in terms of identity in contrast to those they opposed. This is when the baby is cast out with the bath water and everything that is 'not black' comes under attack.
This is why our responses at every step of our attempt to confront a problem must be guided by our recognition of the fundamental CAUSE of the problem. If not, we will respond inappropriately. This will in turn lead to the evolution of the other into forms that was not its original intention.
This is an excellant discussion, and yours and Craig's questions most helpful in highlighting that which will enable it to progress further.
Craig,
ReplyDelete"...it scares me that a religion can hold life in such low regard."
It's not the religion of Islam that holds life in such low regard, it's the fanatics, the self-acclaimed caretakers of Islam, like the one you mentioned. To know a religion you have to read the scripture of that religion and interpret it your own way even if you are a non-muslim. All religious scriptures are prone to (purposeful or ignorant) misinterpretation and this is what gives such bigots the opportunity to assert their will on the (predominantly ignorant) people.
And 'Jihad' literally means struggle and was used by our prophet Muhammad in the context of personal struggle against social vices. In Islam war is only prescribed when one is attacked, when there is an offensive. Even then women, children, elders and places of worship of the enemy are not to be harmed, and POWs are not to be killed. All this is obvious from the Quran but the fanatics have distorted the plain and simple interpretation. Most non-Arab muslims don't understand Arabic which is the language of the Quran, this gives the bigots more leeway.
The Quran
Inquisitor, thank you for answering and staying with the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our response to terrorism has been more than off target. It appears all Bush understands are bombs, which only leads to more terrorism. Not to mention Bush's fascination with countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
You and I probably wouldn't agree on everything, but I do appreciate your time and patience.
Re: "Allah or Jesus by Rick Mathes"
ReplyDeleteHmmm... It's easy for wolves to craft fake interviews or at least put serious spin on events as a way to get points across that are otherwise unsubstantiated. But it doesn't make them true.
I could easily make similar unsubstantiated claims about all Christians in general, and there will be a grain of truth in them (since they do apply to a fringe of Christians):
1) Christians believe in killing anyone at a family planning clinic
2) Christians believe in supporting the interests of the rich and powerful, and looking the other way as those in power ignore the poor and powerless, because Christians believe that being rich and powerful is a sign of God's favor, and being poor and powerless is a sign of sin
3) Christians believe in aggressively taking power from any regimes that do not share Christian values, world view, or preferred political system (something they share with certain Muslims!)
Peace and understanding is the path to truth, not aggression and falsehood. That is the truth that too many conservative Christians and other (fake Christian) neo-conservatives don't understand, or ignore (since the end justifies the means?).
People, raise your kids to be open to dialog, question prejudice, and keep an eye out for the "wolves in sheep's clothing".
Muslims don't know the fact that Muhammed was deceived by satan (who perhaps took the shape of angel Gabriel). They believe satan's lies such as Jesus Christ did not die on the cross and that He did not come alive on the third day of His burial. People who reject historical facts are fools.
ReplyDeletePart of you guys still do not listen to what Muslims are saying, Unbelievable but we have the same phenomena in my country and I keep telling: Hey ! Just open you ears and listen to their say, most of them do not even try to dim their thoughts, they speak it out loud and clear, Just listen and incorporate in your mind and cognizance, cause one quality they do own is telling you exactly what they think, Then why try translating it into different meanings?
ReplyDeleteJihad against the infidels is burnt in most of their minds from kindergarten and elementary school; it's not a secret that it is in their learning books, we found and keep finding those books through once in a while. we know as a fact of parents that are proud of their kids saying they want to become a suicide bomber when they get elder and go to heaven to meat with their 72 virgins that are waiting for them,
Why not just LISTEN to them and conclude careful listening?!
About a month ago, a young American citizen was badly injured from a suicide bomber that exploded himself at the entrance of a fast food shop in the center of Tel Aviv, 10 died on spot, over 50 injured in different severities, the young Us Guy couldn't make it and passed away two days ago.
Now guess of what faith was the bomber; Christian Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or Zulu ?
"L I s t e n i n g" in this specific event meant that the bomber's commander, that sent him to the "holly" mission and other six Jihads members, were delivered into the arms of 72 virgins-each (72X7+1 bomber= 576 V) a day after the young American guy passed away, although a whole month passed from the event but better late than never.
I'm am a worried Israeli ! Wondering who can secure us that the virgin's number in Paradise ends soon, so they may lose their motivation.
I had to give up half way through.
ReplyDeleteI simply could not read it because of the lack of contrast.
Either change the brackgrownd to a lighter tint of blue or change the text to a bold white.
Disapointed in your design.
While religious Jihad is ridiculous, I fell that us Christians should at least make an attempt at empathy with other religions. Ask yourself why the Muslim cleric might preach jihad against Christians?
ReplyDeleteChristians truly desire and pray that all humans will be "saved." The animosity towards Christianity is generated by what is falsely taught to be the fate of all non-Christians. That is, all Christians go to heaven for eternity, while all others are condemned to eternal torment in hell. Is it any wonder that most other religions do not feel all warm and cuddly towards us?
The fact is that not one non-Christian will suffer eternally in hell! Not even one atheist! God does not hate us, He loves us!
Each religion has their own holy book. Most Christians have never understood theirs!
Discover what becomes of nonbelievers at myth-one.com
From Rick Mathes Author of Allah or Jesus:
ReplyDeletePlease go to www.MissionGateMinistry.org for the unedited article "Allah or Jesus" the rebuttals and follow-up articles "A Simmering Volcano" and "Letter to Iraqi Patriots."
Oh yes, it is true.
Please go to www.MissionGateMinsistry.org under "Allah or Jesus" and read the follow-up articles "A Simmering Volacano" and "Letter to Iraqi Patriots."
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Rick Mathes, Author