After the Oklahoma City bombing there were several physical attacks on American Muslims (who had nothing to do with it, of course).
Looks like that’s about to be repeated with all the angry talk being hurled around. Everybody wants to go to war and get revenge. They can’t actually do that, so there’s a danger some hotheads will imagine the next best thing is to attack anyone down the block who looks Middle Eastern.
Lets just hope that people realize that all Muslims, Arabs or any combinaion thereof are not alike. If this was indeed an act of a Muslim group, let us remember that they are called extremeists for a reason. There are many many Muslims out there that value peace, freedom and America. I would wager that there are even more peace loving Muslims than war mongering Muslims.
But, looking at the past, I don’t think that we will realize that. We feel the need for a face to hate, and today that face is Arab.
My prayers are with ALL of our country, and indeed ALL the innocents of the world.
Blaming Islam or individual Muslims for what happened makes as much sense as blaming the Presbyterians for Jonestown.
In a thread some time ago, I made the comment that while I don’t pretend to know the mind of God, I felt confident in the truth of the statement that He did not instruct certain people who claimed to be following Him to attack abortion clinics.
While I have absolutely no pretensions to being an Islamic theologian – what I do with Christian theology is tough enough – I think I’m totally in the right in saying that Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, had absolutely no hand in the killing of innocent people, and that any fanatic who claims He did is being Al-Patric Bin-Robert, not a true religious leader. And I’m confident all right-thinking Servants of Allah (literal translation of “Muslim”) reject such claims with the same horror we do.
Polycarp
If you are not an Islamic theologian, as you say, why are you so confident in making assertions about the religion?
(Which is not to say that anyone should attack their Muslim neighbors, obviously)
I heard reports in Chicago yesterday of threats being called in to Islamic schools and temples.
What sort of a world?
They wanted us to turn against each other…don’t let it happen!
jarbaby
FWIW, because I do know a little about the basic principles and read up a bit on what constitutes a valid jihad (as opposed to what some hot-blooded idiot thinks ought to be a jihad). And because IMHO Allah, the one deity of Islam, is none other than the Arabic name for the God of Christianity and Judaism, Whom I do feel comfortable speaking of in certain circumstances.
Izzy until somebody with a theological background in Islam chimes in, I will have to support Polycarp’s statement. I do not claim to be a scholar, but I am familiar enough with it, having been taught it in a comparitive religion class at Northwestern and experiencing it through friends and my work-related travels in Uzbekistan that mainstraim Sunni Muslims are generally a non-violent people who would not support the killing of tens of thousands of innocents. These people believe in Moses, Jesus (as a prophet) and Mohammed. They worship the same God Christians and Jews do.
Mainstream Islam also has problems with fundamentalist factions. Take a look a look at Uzbekistan. In either 1999 or 2000, Tashkent was hit by bombings from Islamic fundamentalists, even though the country itself is Muslim. And certain pockets of the country are known for harboring militant factions, and Uzbekistan is having a hell of time dealing with it. These militans are people who want to purify the religion, who think that Islam is “unpure” and has succumbed to too much Western influence. It is like saying that abortion-clinic bombers are indicative of mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam do not condone violence. Yet there are certainly terrorist groups from both sides of the fence who believe they have a God-given right to terror. Let those assholes fry in Hell, but let’s keep sane about judging the greater populace.
Polycarp,
I would suggest that there are probably a lot of people who “know a little about the basic principles” of Christianity, and who have “read up a bit” on some Christian theological principle, whose interpretations you might take exception to.
I’m not sure what your second sentence means, but it seems that you are discussing the nature of God, as opposed to the teachings of a particular religion.
Which is not to say that you are wrong in your assertions - I have no idea. Rather, to say that you are not qualified to make it (much as I am).
pulykamell
I don’t understand your point at all. I am not denying that there are numerous Muslims whose interpretation of Islam does not include blowing up innocent people. But there also some whose interpretation of Islam is does include this. What I don’t understand is how anyone without an in depth knowledge of Islam and the various interpretations could confidently assert that a particular one is correct.
I fail to see the debate in the OP.
Izzy-it also doesn’t take a Christian scholar to say that Christianity didn’t excuse the Crusades.
I disagree with this as well, for the same reasons.
Izzy: See below.
http://www.cyberislam.com/literature/fiqh/halalharam/chap4s5.html
You’ll note in the discussion on that page that a distinction is made between those “that fight Muslims on religious grounds or drive them from their homes” and those who don’t. The implication seems clear that the Koran forbid the slaughter of those that do not.
So the question then becomes - Do civilians in the U.S. qualify under the former category? If we take Osama bin Laden as an example, he at first said they did not and instead enjoined his supporters to threaten only military targets. Later he changed his tune and said ALL Americans were responsible because they paid taxes that funded "American repression " ( maybe not his exact words, I don’t have an immediate source for that quote ). But he is is the most extreme of extremists. Rather like [b}Nixon** over in another thread saying we should kill millions of Afghans with nuclear weapons for being complicit in their governments actions :rolleyes: . And even bin Laden wavered on the point at first.
I think it is safe to say ( and I’ll start loooking for quotes later, if you like ) that almost all mainstream Muslim theologians would come down firmly on the side of the argument that says that it is an individual’s actions that counts, not those of their governments, over which they likely exercise little control.
IzzyR, this is the second time on the Boards that I’ve seen you post this exact sentiment. What are you getting at? It seems to indicate that you are perfectly comfortable painting followers of Islam with a broad enough brush to confidently assert that Muslims do all condone violence. It’s silly and dangerous.
Each of the world religions (let’s talk Christianity, Judaism, Islam) divide into about four groups: mainstream, conservative, liberal, and fanatic. I am not a theologian in any of these religions, true. But I feel perfectly comfortable saying that Fred Phelps doesn’t represent Christian thought, and there are any number of cites on this board alone to prove that. It’s clear that Jews For Jesus don’t represent Jewish thought. Suicide bombers don’t represent Muslim thought. It’s that simple. The extreme violence from a group claiming affinity with a religion doesn’t mean that religion supports that violence. That’s like saying that all victims of bullying condone violence, because some victims of bullies shot up their schools.
IzzyR, this is the second time on the Boards that I’ve seen you post this exact sentiment. What are you getting at? It seems to indicate that you are perfectly comfortable painting followers of Islam with a broad enough brush to confidently assert that Muslims do all condone violence. It’s silly and dangerous.
Each of the world religions (let’s talk Christianity, Judaism, Islam) divide into about four groups: mainstream, conservative, liberal, and fanatic. I am not a theologian in any of these religions, true. But I feel perfectly comfortable saying that Fred Phelps doesn’t represent Christian thought, and there are any number of cites on this board alone to prove that. It’s clear that Jews For Jesus don’t represent Jewish thought. Suicide bombers don’t represent Muslim thought. It’s that simple. The extreme violence from a group claiming affinity with a religion doesn’t mean that religion supports that violence. That’s like saying that all victims of bullying condone violence, because some victims of bullies shot up their schools.
Izzy - We’re obviously talking past each other, because I’m not sure what your point is either. I don’t mean that as an insult, I just don’t understand what we’re both unclear about. There are interpretations of Christianity that advocate violence. e.g. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, abortion bombers, white supremecists, etc, etc, etc… Do you really have to be a Christian scholar to decide which is right? Do you really have to be an Islma scholar to decide that the mainstream proponents of a religion that believe in Jesus and Mohammed probably do not revel in the death of thousands of innocents? Is it really such a stretch for me to assume this? I am not understanding your question.
Tamerlane
Evidently the group that you are citing does not believe in this type of violence. This does not mean that other groups might not disagree. I think many religions (and many other areas of study) contain a lot of principles and quotes that might be used one way or the other by an interested group. I have seen this done numerous times with Judaism.
This is absurd. Please reread my posts.
True. And the fact that other groups claiming affinity with a religion reject this extreme violence does not mean that the religion does not support that violence.
pulykamell
Well, you can decide for yourself whatever you want. But a definitive judgement should not be made on the basis of such simplistic notions as you describe (“hey, they believe in Jesus…”)
Izzy, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that nobody, whether they’re a member of that religion or not, can lay a finger on what is the ‘correct’ interpretation of a given religion.
So if we can’t prove that a religion either condemns or supports violent acts, what are we to do with adherents who oppose violence committed in the name of that religion? By your argument, they haven’t interpreted their religion correctly.
Jeez, sorry for simplifying the issue a bit…
What do you want me to do…I can point you to hundreds of websites that will tell you that Islam is a religion of non-violence, a religion that has through the whole of history treated Christians better than Christians have treated Muslims, and that it is a religion that is grossly misrepresented in the West, and a religion which has also been distorted among its followers. If I dig up these sites and sources, will it help? Is my personal experience with the people of Islamic nations, and my university-level studies not enough for you? Would it help if I had a Ph. D. after my name? I’ll point to the religious experts that will agree? But will this make any difference to you?
I hope it is absurd. I have re-read your posts, and others clearly are under the same impression I am. Prove me wrong. Explain what you mean.
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between mainstream thought and extremist thought? If Fred Phelps makes a statement on behalf of his sect, and, I don’t know, a deacon speaks on behalf of the Methodist church, are you really confused as to which speaker better represents mainstream Christian thought?