I give up. How long?
Why presume that the South is more violent than other parts of the country? Do Southerers have a history of attacking Jehovah’s Witnesses? Have there been attacks against Muslims by Southerners in the wake of 9/11? ISTM that the areas with the highest murder and violent crime rates are large cities, not necessarily in the South.
Azael, unless there is data to support your thesis, your post looks like nothing but a statement of regional bigotry.
Here is a listing of local churches from the Marion County Chamber of Commerce way down in south Mississippi. Scroll down a bit, and right between Interdenominational (“Sonrise Ministries”) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are themselves considered big-time heretics by the Southern Baptists, by the way), you will find the category Islamic and a listing for the Masjid Al-Halim of New Medinah.
Here is a list of “Places of Worship” from the directory and general boosterism site of Tuskegee, Alabama. The Tuskegee Islamic Community is right there between St. Andrews Episcopal Church and the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (That alphabetical order thing means Muslims–“Islamic”–tend to rub shoulders with the JW’s a lot.)
Here is a map to the Muslim Cultural Center in Valdosta, Georgia.
I have deliberately steered clear of the larger cities; naturally you can find mosques and many other kinds of religious organizations in Atlanta or Birmingham or Charlotte.
Finally, here is a story from the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi, about the congregation of the Presbyterian Church in Oxford inviting local Muslims to a picnic in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
By the way, I’m not claiming that any of this constitutes any evidence of exceptional virtue on the part of inhabitants of the South. (Well, that Clarion-Ledger story was pretty darned heartwarming.) Not lynching people with different religious beliefs merely constitutes basic human decency and abiding by the fundamental laws of a civilized society, which protect the peaceful exercise of religion of everyone.
And yes, there have been ugly and stupid incidents, the perpetrators of which should and must be punished by the authorities, in whatever region of the country they take place. But there damned well shouldn’t be any part of the United States where people of any religious faith or of no faith should be unable to go about their lawful business.
You are right, I looked around a bit and it seems that the cities saw the greatest rise in hate crimes. Southerners aren’t off the hook, but there isn’t any data to support the South was the worst
http://hrw.org/reports/2002/usahate/usa1102-04.htm#P349_57452
Perhaps “regional bigotry” wasn’t the best way to make the point, but understand that evangelists go everyday into dangerous parts of the world and work around some very dangerous, close-minded people. I’m not saying this person deserved it, I am just not suprised it happened.
I love it. Despite what the koran so clearly says, whenever a muslim does something bad (i.e. kill an infidel), the response by fake-muslims is always “oh but Islam doesn’t say to do that.” Load of crap.
Kalt, The Font of all Wisdom, why don’t you just say what you mean, that we should just have the mother of all wars with the Islamic world and whoever’s left standing at the end gets to claim they were right all along?
Ok. Sounds good to me. Just realize that it will be a defensive war to insure protection against the islamic world (which has already delcared war on us). How ironic… two cultures starting two “defensive” wars. Let’s do it. There isn’t enough room on this planet for free, democratic societies and Islam. One has to go. Oh, one correction - it’s not about “who was right all along”… it is about not having planes hijacked and crashed into our buildings.
stunned speechless
Essentially in any place where female circumcision is a traditionnal practice. FGM isn’t a practice condoned by Islam. It’s a tradition in some regions of the world. So, if people in these regions are muslim, then it’s practised my muslims. If they are christians, then it’s practised my christians. If they’re animists, then it’s practised by animists.
As for a cite, I took me 10 seconds to find oneHere’s one :
*Female circumcision varies widely even within Africa, where it is practiced across a band of the continent that includes parts of [list of countries follows]. The percentage of women circumcised in each country varies considerably […] as does the kind of operation practiced, its cultural and personal significance, and its history. Female circumcision is not practiced at all by some communities within this broad area, but it is commonplace in others. ** Christians, Muslims, and followers of traditional religions all might practice forms of female circumcision **. *
But of course, it’s easier to rely on prejudices (muslims do all sort of barbarious things) than to try to be informed. Or else you could notice that the dividing line for said barbarious practices (witch executions, female circumcision, etc…) is usually develloped countries/thrid world countries, not Islam/Christiannity. A french muslim is unlikely to have his daughters circumcized, a sudanese christian is likely to.
But then some people would have to face some awful truths like the fact that the world can’t be comfortably painted in black and white (muslim=evil, christian= good, in this case). I guess that could be distressing to some.
You know, I’m almost starting to look forward to Kalt’s posts now, just to see what he’ll come out with next. It’s like some horrible car crash - I know it’s going to be ugly, but I just can’t look away…
The Quran is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. Scholars and theologians have been debating its finer points ever since it was revealed over 1400 years ago. People spend their lives studying it, and yet to this day there are still significant differences in the way it is interpreted - significant enough to give rise to many different schools of thought and entire sects. As well as the mainstream Sunnis like myself, there are Shi’is, Wahabbis, Bahai’s, Ahmedis, etc, not to mention all of the Sufi Schools.
Nevertheless, it still surprises me that rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-christian and anti-jewish fanatics can find ways to twist our Scripture to justify their atrocities, and yet choose to conveniently ignore verses such as the following:
*“Those who belive in the Quran
And those who follow the Jewish Scriptures
And the Christians and the Sabians -
Any who believe in Allah
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord; on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”
(Surah 2, Verse 62)*
Seems pretty clear to me. But then again, I’m not a Scholar, so I could still be wrong. Maybe this is actually a clear command from God to slay unbelievers wherever I find them and murder their children in their beds…:rolleyes:
Again, when a religious text says general niceties along with specific commands to do bad, the commands to do bad control. Commands always control over general observations (like “sheep are fluffy”). Anyway, the seemingly tolerant verse you just cited has been abrogated by:
“Who so desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him; in the next world he shall be among the losers.” (Q. 3:85)
and:
“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Q. 9:5)
Can the Koran really be this self-contradicting? If so, only a fool would follow it, and even the most devout follower could only follow about half of it (because the other half is contradictive).
Muslims in their infinite wisdom realized the koran makes absolutely no sense when taken as a whole, and have solved this problem with “Abrogation.” see http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page232.htm
All the good, nice, happy-fluffy verses are considered abrogated. For example, the verse Damascene just cited is considered abrogated by 3:85.
Just a quick question, kalt :
Do you feel exactly the same about the christians and the bible (self-contradictions, theologian “interpreting away” what they don’t like, only fools following this religion, sacred book making no sense when considered as a whole, etc…) or do you think it’s only true for muslims and the Koran?
Also : did you even read the Koran?
Islam isn’t monolithic. It’s a diverse religion. Even the principle of “abrogation” isn’t accepted by all Muslims.
Claims of abrogation of Qur’anic verses ( and which verses are abrogated ) are not accepted by all Muslims. Indeed when they are brought up in the context of jihad, it is generally by extremists. So:
*Bin Ladin’s choice of verses to support his arguments shows that he holds a particular position on a complex question of Quranic interpretation, al-nasikh wa-l-mansukh – the so-called “abrogating and abrogated verses”.[9] The notion originates from the interpretation of a number of Qur’anic verses and from the fact that the Qur’an was not revealed all at once but piece by piece, in such a way that some interpret certain later revelations as replacements for earlier ones. “None of Our revelations do We ‘abrogate’ (nansakh) or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?” (2:106).[10] “When We substitute (baddalna) one revelation for another – and God knows best what He reveals (in stages) – they say ‘You are nothing but a forger!’ But most of them do not understand” (16:101). “God blots out (yamhu) or confirms what He pleases; with Him is the Mother of the Book” (13:39).
Quotation marks around the word “abrogate” in the above translation of Qur’an 2:106 indicate that the meaning of the word is not uncontested. While Ibn Salamah gives only one possibility: “to abolish” or “remove” (rafa’a)[11], al-Nahhas says that it derives from two things: “to obliterate” (azala) as the sun obliterates the shade, and “to transcribe” (naqala), as when a scribe copies a book.[12] Several types of naskh were identified: one in which the legal principle was changed but not the Qur’anic text itself, another in which the text was changed but not the legal principle, and a third in which both the text and the principle had been removed. Nor did the authorities agree on which were the abrogated and abrogating verses, and how many of them there were: al-Suyuti said 20, al-Nahhas 134, Ibn Salamah 213, and the Shi’ite sources 571![13]
While many continue to believe that the legal implications of certain parts of the Qur’an have been abrogated, some scholars are re-examining the principle of eternality of the Last Revelation and have concluded that “abrogation” refers not to parts of the Qur’an but to previous laws imposed on the Semitic peoples. The laws of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy may have been removed by the Qur’an, but in the Qur’an itself there is no abrogation.[14] Furthermore, they maintain, careful reading will demonstrate that abrogation is not needed because there is no conflict in revelations, however widely separated by time and circumstance: when proper cognizance is taken of context, definition, and the grammar of inclusion, exclusion, and exception, apparent contradictions disappear and with them the need for the concept of abrogation.[15] *
From here: http://web.utk.edu/~warda/bin_ladin_and_quran.htm
Some reject the concept of abrogation altogether:
*The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject. *
from here: http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html
More specifically on Surah 9:5 :
*Surah 9
VERSE 1
**“Freedom from obligation (or ultimatum) is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers with whom you have entered into a treaty with.” **
VERSE 2
"Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers."
VERSE 3
**“A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.” **
VERSE 4
**“If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfil your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.” **
VERSE 5
"Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
After reading the five verses together the following matters becomes apparent:
1- Verse 5 speaks of the idol worshippers who are AT WAR with the believers and not any idol worshippers. The words : “the idol worshipers with whom you have entered into a treaty with” in verse 1 confirms that matter since no treaty is entered into unless there is a war situation……
2- In verse 2 God address’s the idol worshippers and tells them that they may roam freely during the four sacred months (since the believers are prohibited from fighting in these months), but that at the end they will not escape from God.
3- In verse 4 it is once again confirmed that the believers are not to attack the idol worshippers who have signed a treaty with them and who do not violate it.
4- Following that, in verse 5 God says that when the sacred months have passed the believers are to fight the idol worshippers.
5- The content of verse 4 (that believers are not to fight idol worshippers who uphold the terms of a treaty) confirms the real meaning of verse 5; the believers are commanded to fight the idol worshippers (outside the sacred months) only at times of war, or when the idol worshippers violate the terms of a treaty (also in a state of war).
This meaning is again confirmed in verse 7 with the words:
“Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honour and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.”
In spite of all these indications in the first seven verses of Sura 9 that assert that the fighting may only be directed to the idol worshippers in a state of war, and with those who violate the terms of a peace treaty, yet the abrogation inventors have ignored all the mention of the word ‘treaty’ in these verses and its profound significance. *
From here: http://www.submission.org/4-answering-Islam.htm#author
So, yes, the ObL’s of the world ( along with many early Sunni jurists ) do indeed claim that Sura 9:5 was an abrogating verse. But that is hardly universally accepted in the Muslim world.
A further, rathe skeptical article on abrogation, which does however point out the diversity of opinion on the topic : http://www.rim.org/muslim/clear.htm
In this context, does the term “idol worshippers” refer to all non-Muslims, or strictly to non-monotheists, i.e. would Jews and Christians be exampted from these horrible fates?
Even if we could “go to war with all muslims” as you say, how do you suppose we should do that? Should there be tests to separate the “fake Muslims” from the real ones? Or just to be safe should we persecute them as well?
I don’t think a cite on how the koran could be interpreted is all that helpful, now if you could show me a cite on how all muslims follow a uniform interpretation of their religious text you would be getting somewhere.
Unfortunately all that would be getting any of us is the same kind of unreasoning paranoia that we have been missing since we had to worry about the “commies.”
It really is sad that people had to interpret the 9/11 attacks as a war “declared by the all of Islam” rather than accept the slightly more realistic and certainly more prosiac “war declared by extremist Islamic terrorists.” Is an abortion clinic bombing the signal of a war “with all of Christianity”?
It refers to non-monotheists…specifically, the Meccan tribes that were making war on the Muslims of Medina.
Is it still applied primarily to non-monotheists? Or are there certains groups of Muslims who would like to apply those specific provisions to all non-Muslims? i.e. have those phrases been expanded in general usage to cover situations other than the original historical ones for which they were intended?
There is no consistency on this issue. Some apparently believe it doesn’t apply to anybody but the 7th century Banu Ishmael, as with this excerpt on a debate on this issue:
*“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” (9:5)
Osama Bin Ladin used the same verse within his fatwa to justify his new spree of attacks. This can be invalidated very simply. You are obviously trying to give the impression that the referred verse of the Quran is directing all individual Muslims from every era to declare a war against all ‘pagans’ of the world (actually those particular type of pagans are no longer in existence, therefore the verse would be void by now in any case). Nevertheless, it is a well known fact that the verse relates to a period, when an organized Muslim state existed in Medina and it was, in fact, this Muslim state organized under the leadership of the Prophet, which was directed to fight the ‘pagans’ in these verses. The Muslims, who are addressed in these verses are, in fact, addressed as citizens of an organized Muslim state, which had declared war against the ‘pagans’. This is clearly the case in each and every one of the verses, which entail directives relating to Jihad.
Furthermore, the ‘pagans’ against whom fighting is ordained by the referred verses are not general in nature, but are actually only the polytheists of Banu Ishmael – historical fact. It should be clearly understood that the directive of fighting entailed in these verses relates specifically to God’s law relating to the ultimate manifestation of Truth at the hands of His messenger. The implication of these verses cannot, in any case, be extended to anyone besides the direct addressees of the Messenger of God.*
From here: http://www.faithfreedom.com/debates_and_comments/debate_with_ismahan_levi.htm
Yes, indeed. ObL for one ( far as I can tell ).
Well, that’s the debate :).
As with most theological issues, there is no unanimity on this one.
In the meantime, back on the planet Earth in the twenty-first century, the deputy governor of Zamfara state, Nigeria, stated on national television:
This woman, Isiome Daniel, recently of ThisDay and author of the editorial which speculated that Mohammed might want to marry one of the Miss World pageant contestants.
That editorial in turn sparked riots in which over 200 people were killed and ThisDay’s offices were destroyed.
I don’t give a fuck about this theological debate, but can someone please explain to me how this incident is not religiously motivated, not religiously sanctioned, and not spread by the issuance of religious dicta by government officials on the public airwaves?
Seriously, did I miss the part where it was clearly explained that this incident is somehow incorrectly associated with Islam, Islamic leadership, and Islamic teachings?
I’m sorry, I seem to have missed the part where anyone on this thread has argued that Islam has never been used as an excuse for hatred or that no Muslim has been inspired by some understanding of the Quran or the Hadith to do hateful or violent things.
The point of the “defenders” of Islam is that broad generalizations that ascribe all the evils of the world (or even all the evils in Muslim countries) to the nature of Islam are simplistic and, probably, wrong. Now if you want to argue that The recent “unpleasantness” in Rwanda is clearly a manifestation of Christianity, then I suppose you can make the same sort of claims about Islam, but arguing from a localized event (with lots of cultural baggage) to a condemnation of all Islam would seem to be a stretch.
And implying that anyone, here, has actually claimed that “no true Muslim” would be violent is clearly an unsupportable strawman.
I thought I had addressed this very issue earlier Sofa King. This incident is definitely associated with Islam, Islamic leadership, and Islamic teachings in that part of Nigeria. It is also associated with the sectarian violence that has been ongoing in the region of Kaduna since 1999 ( with hundreds killed in intermittent riots long before this pageant issue ever surfaced ) and the tension that has been present since much earlier. It also has to do with a wider societal tension in Nigeria, which splits along class, ethnic and geographic lines, as well as relgious ones.
But you will note that the only thing I, personally, have ever argued is that extremism and violence is not the only face of Islam. I have never argued that it is not ever a face of Islam. In Kaduna today it most certainly is.
I will note that technically a mere government official isn’t supposed to have the authorioty to issue a fatwa ( that is reserved for Islamic jurists ). But that is almost immaterial, as enough people will accept it and the damage in a sense has already been done.
Just more bloody-minded ignorance and intolerance.
A further blurb on this, with some Muslim reaction, both positive ( in Kaduna ) and negative ( in Kaduna and elsewhere ): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20021126/wl_nm/religion_nigeria_missworld_dc&e=2&ncid=586