Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door

[jericho]

Tolerant I can deal with, but this is the same situation as gays and muslims making it forced to be tolerant to accept those lifestyles/culture changes. They make it seem that if you do not accept it then you are wrong. Well I am wrong if that be the case.

 

How would you feel if a bunch of devil worshippers or sex offenders moved in next door or in the neighborhood where your kids played and grew up? It is the same principle

[True blue (and gold)]

Tolerant I can deal with, but this is the same situation as gays and muslims making it forced to be tolerant to accept those lifestyles/culture changes. They make it seem that if you do not accept it then you are wrong. Well I am wrong if that be the case.

 

How would you feel if a bunch of devil worshippers or sex offenders moved in next door or in the neighborhood where your kids played and grew up? It is the same principle

 

Did you honestly mean to equate muslims with sex offenders?

[Habib]

You have an absolutely remarkable knack for putting words in my mouth. I said none of the things you assert. I’m sure it would better fit your narrative if I were an intolerant, uninformed, xenophobic yokel, afraid of the unfamiliar.

 

For the record, I invested a significant chunk of 1983 reading the Koran in its entirely, from cover to cover… (in an English translation, not in Arabic, so, I realize this discounts my comprehension in the eyes of the truly faithful.) I made notes and studied the most generally accepted biographies of Mohammed. I studied a variety of texts providing insight into the history, context and interpretation of the verses. My desire was to genuinely understand the prophet and the faith he founded. This is something I did not take lightly. It required many visits to bookstores and libraries in the days before most of us had internet access. I still have that English translation of the Koran in my bookcase. I have read passages in it many times since.

 

I can state with absolute certainty that the teaching of jihad to millions of illiterate Muslims by mullahs around the world is not derived from some obscure verse or two, but is a legitimate teaching by Muhammad that is repeated multiple times throughout the Koran.

 

I never said that Muslims that do not practice jihad are fraudulent, but I do assert that those who do practice jihad are not making up some entirely new doctrine unsupported strong Koranic text and teaching.

 

I don’t believe I have put words in your mouth or misconstrued what you have written:

 

1. You cosigned the statement that if more Muslims condemned terrorism, then Americans would be more receptive to them.
   
2. You wonder why there is no outcry from Muslims against terrorism. It is implied that this is because it is part of the religion; otherwise “learned scholars” would condemn it.
   
3. When presented with evidence that very many Muslims have in fact condemned terrorism, you argue that the fundamentalists are the most true adherents of the faith, that those condemning terrorism are apostates.
   
4. You argue that there are no violent passages in the texts of the Christian faith, but delete the Old Testament from comparison, citing your interpretation of the Old Testament’s utility to the religion.
   

 

Is this incorrect?

 

You are now arguing in favor of your interpretation of Islam, where jihad’s meaning is to kill non-Muslims. All Muslims practice jihad, but most believe it to mean an internal struggle to make oneself better or to condemn Muslim hypocrisy. The Wahhabi do interpret jihad to mean a violent struggle. The point is that you do not allow for differences in interpretation and suggest that there is only one logical and correct one. That is what I do not agree with. There have been centuries of Islamic scholars writing on the meaning and significance of the Quran and the Hadiths with little agreement.

 

By comparison you assert that there is also no room for misinterpretation in Christianity, then argue that more than half of the Bible is not valid for interpretation. That strikes me as a peculiar interpretation in its own right, and one that I believe only the most “liberal” Christians would wholly share. The Ten Commandments are one of the most prolific symbols of Christianity today. You say you remove the Old Testament from comparison because you are only interested in comparing Jesus and Mohammed as the central figures of their respective religions, but do Christians not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why is only one valid for comparison? Are the words of the Old Testament not also the words of God? I do find this interpretation convenient in context of the debate about violent passages and interpretations. Further, if you dismiss the Old Testament as Jewish law, do you have a similar disdain for Judaism?

 

It’s reasonable for people to reach differing conclusions about their interpretations of religious texts, but I don’t think it is reasonable to suggest that there is only one plausible or universal interpretation of them, especially when they are as long-winded, cryptic, and contradictory as most of them are. We can’t even find consensus among similarly educated Kentuckians about Christianity on this board.

[jericho]

Did you honestly mean to equate muslims with sex offenders?

 

It is a comparison. I would rather live buy a Muslim than a sex offender. But should we have right to say we dont want to live by someone, whether or not we can stop it is differnet, but being allowed to say we dont is our freedom as is being allowed to say we dont like it

[PepRock01]

It's good to see the know nothings are still around with different targets.

[gchs_uk9]

How would you feel if a bunch of devil worshippers or sex offenders moved in next door or in the neighborhood where your kids played and grew up? It is the same principle

 

Will there be a website I can check for neighborhood Muslims?

[Jim Schue]

Will there be a website I can check for neighborhood Muslims?

 

They can just get the local realtors on board to make sure the Muslims have their own neighborhoods, kind of like how blacks would only be sold homes on the west side of Louisville in the old days.

[HT721]

No one in this thread or on this program last night is addressing the real problem, and that's why these fears exist in the first place. Everyone wants to rush and call Muslims terrorist or they want to rush and call the other side racist and intolerant. Fact is both sides could do more to better the relationships and understanding, but instead everyone just wants to name call. There is a radical part of the Muslim world that needs to be addressed, peaceful Muslims could do a better job of condemning the terrorist and helping to fight it (More so the peaceful Muslims in the Middle East), American peaceful Muslims could do a better job getting their message out condemning the attacks and trying to show they aren't in line with the terrorist (They shouldn't have to do this, but fact is it's needed because of the vast misunderstanding and misconceptions, so to fight that they are going to have to be more open and vocal than the average person). The other side needs to realize that not all Muslims are terrorist and they need to be more willing to listen and have dialogue with the non radical Muslims. By acting how they are acting they just risk driving more rational Muslims to the extremist side.

[Clyde]

The Muslims come in and expect us to change our culture,.

 

Isn't that true of all religions? Christians want abortion outlawed. That's a change in culture. Christians want gay marriage outlawed. That's a change in culture. Baptists want alcohol banned. Change in culture. Catholics want the DP abolished. Change in culture.

[Clyde]

No one in this thread or on this program last night is addressing the real problem, and that's why these fears exist in the first place.

 

Isn't that true of many issues? Homosexuality, for example?

[HT721]

Isn't that true of all religions? Christians want abortion outlawed. That's a change in culture. Christians want gay marriage outlawed. That's a change in culture. Baptists want alcohol banned. Change in culture. Catholics want the DP abolished. Change in culture.

 

Without a doubt, I think all religions want to change things. If you are true in your convictions those beliefs will guide everything else from laws you believe in on down to the decisions you make. Problem is since so many religions see things differently we are going to have to draw the line to protect freedom of religion for all so your religion can't encroach on my practicing mine and vice versa.

[Fastbreak]

I don’t believe I have put words in your mouth or misconstrued what you have written:

You absolutely have done so. For someone so intent upon logic, you make leaps that may follow your own assumptions, but are not in necessarily in unity with the facts.

 

I am going to address your points in separate posts just to keep things focused.

 

You cosigned the statement that if more Muslims condemned terrorism, then Americans would be more receptive to them.

Do you honestly believe that this is not a reasonable concept? Seriously?

 

The fact that you provided a PDF with documents by predominantly Western Muslims denouncing terrorism in the name of Allah indicates that at least some Muslims saw the wisdom of separating themselves from their fundamentalist brethren. They clearly felt this was necessary and might possibly be beneficial. My question is, "Why are these Muslims not getting more ink and air time to express their views?" Do you genuinely believe that average Americans with only a passing understanding of Islam would not be moved by the sincere and passionate denouncements of terrorism in the name of jihad by authentic followers of Islam?

 

If by “cosigned” you mean, I do not understand how encouraging peace loving Muslims to speak out against terrorism by other followers of their faith is considered intolerant or hateful... then yeah, I guess I cosigned.

 

I would not hesitate to agree that it would be a good idea for mainstream “peace loving” Christians to denounce the ludicrous actions of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist, abortion clinic bombers, etc.

 

If you do nothing else in response to this post, I urge you to explain how my suggestion that “peaceful” Muslims be more vocal in denouncing the actions of their “violent/terroristic” brethren is intolerant or hateful.

[Fastbreak]

You wonder why there is no outcry from Muslims against terrorism. It is implied that this is because it is part of the religion; otherwise “learned scholars” would condemn it.

To deny that violence and terrorism are a component of Islam, both currently and historically is to deny the truth.

 

Violent acts are clearly outlined by Muhammad multiple times throughout the Koran as a proper means of dealing with criminals and infidels. Those who state otherwise have no depth of knowledge about what is actually in the Koran. Violent treatment of infidels is permitted and actually instructed throughout the Koran. It is taught by mullahs around the world to passionate adherents as a means of gaining the rewards of Allah in paradise.

 

Many Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt due to their general friendliness with the West (primarily to keep their oil revenues flowing.) This is the home to both Mecca and Medina, the cradle of Islam, the religious center toward which over a billion Muslims kneel and pray five times a day.

 

The concept of religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. It is illegal to voice a non-Muslim prayer anywhere, even in the privacy of one’s own home. Owning or even reading from a Bible is not permitted. Conversion to Christianity is legally punishable by public beheading.

 

Amnesty International reports that the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia has "increased dramatically" in recent years. There are more than one thousand reports of Christian workers being arrested, imprisoned and beaten for participating in private worship meetings… not out evangelizing on street corners, but for worshiping in private.

 

I don’t know about you, but the threat of beheading, beating and imprisonment sounds pretty “terrifying” as a response to a person’s mere beliefs. All are endorsed by “learned scholars” of the Koran.

 

The concept that Islam instructs people on how they may “live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs” is apparently nonexistent in Saudi Arabia, one of the more liberal Islamic nations in the Middle East… a nation widely regarded as being too friendly with infidels.

 

I am NOT saying that all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers of the prophet, only that a good number of them in Saudi Arabia apparently believe so.

 

If such violence against non-believers is strongly condemned in the Koran, and Islam is in fact supposed to be a religion of peace to ALL PEOPLE, I do not see why it would be any great task for Islamic scholars to point out the error of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of non-Muslims.

[Fastbreak]

When presented with evidence that very many Muslims have in fact condemned terrorism, you argue that the fundamentalists are the most true adherents of the faith, that those condemning terrorism are apostates.

I have never made such a blanket assertion… but merely that there are many mullahs across the Middle East instructing the faithful (illiterate or otherwise) that violent jihad against infidels is the purest form of the faith.

 

What I will again clearly state, is that if Islam is truly a religion of peace and these mullahs preaching violence and hatred toward the West have no basis whatsoever in Koranic scripture to support their wayward teachings, it should be a simple matter for a vast majority of learned scholars of the Koran to debunk and defuse their vitriolic rants. It should be a simple matter, given time and persistence, for the teachers of peace and tolerance in the faith to root out the terrorists. As it is, I am aware of countless verses to the contrary. Tolerance and faith in the Koran is primarily reserved for fellow followers of the prophet. Violence is instructed and approved by Muhammad numerous times.

 

I do not deny that those who love peace and follow the path of non-violence are indeed Muslims. All I am saying is that there are many who preach and practice the use of violence in propagating the faith with solid justification that they too are faithful. The fact that Muhammad himself is credited with numerous acts of violence and force over non-believers makes it difficult to discredit the violent branch of the faith. You are taking issue with me, when there is ample documentation of mullahs teaching that practitioners of violent jihad are the most faithful adherents of Islam.

 

Their teaching… not mine.

[Fastbreak]

You argue that there are no violent passages in the texts of the Christian faith, but delete the Old Testament from comparison, citing your interpretation of the Old Testament’s utility to the religion.

I hate to break it to you, but there were no Christians in the O.T. The first actual Christian make an appearance more than 400 years after the final text of the O.T. was written.

I do not deny the entirety of the Bible, but as a Christian, I am not bound to all the laws recorded in the Old Testament. Just a few examples are:

• I do not practice the sacrifice of lambs, bulls, doves and other animals at my local temple.
  
• I do not abstain from eating pork, shellfish or fish without scales.
  
• I certainly do not feel that God has appointed me to be a tool to cleanse infidels from the land.
  

I do not believe I am erring in my faith to disregard these laws that were at one time very important to early Jewish followers. It is my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law as a requirement for righteousness: (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

 

You are free to present all the violent acts described in the O.T. as proof of whatever you want. You will not find any preachers or teachers of sound Christian doctrine espousing those today… and certainly not without considerable fallout from those who understand the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

The only reasonable comparison in my mind therefore; is between the ultimate authority of the Christian faith and the ultimate authority of the Muslim faith. It is not a dodge for me to say that all other voices and teachings are secondary.

 

Jesus teaches unconditional love to all, Muhammad is more selective.