“The Arabic word ‘jihad’ is often translated as ‘holy war’, but in a purely linguistic sense, the word ‘jihad’ means struggling or striving.” ~http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam
I’ve been watching this battle of Ideologies for much of my life. You have probably been also. Islam vs. The World.
Bantered back and forth is this word Jihad, which has various meanings, if one listens to the many pundits out there. But, what does my vision tell me? What does my hearing tell me? What does the blood that has flowed out of the use of that word tell me?
Just this past week in France a street artist was beaten by Islamic thugs for having the audacity to paint, ‘coexist’ on a wall. Just the latest of Islamic news flowing out of the country.
France and the beat up street artist aside, other Islamic atrocities occur weekly, if not daily. Happenings, such as, beheadings of journalists, or other hostages, videotaped for Al Jazeera’s viewing pleasure. Yet, our leaders never miss an opportunity to exclaim, with surety, that Islam is not responsible or that Islam is a religion of peace.
Does this make sense?
Seventeen dead French in three days, beginning on January seventh, tells me something about Jihad, doesn’t it? Tells me something about the religion of Islam doesn’t it?
According to French President Francois Hollande, shortly following the savage murders at Charlie Hebdo, No it doesn’t. The President of France said, those deaths……
“have nothing to do with the Muslim religion,” ~French President Francois Hollande
There you go, case closed. However, if that doesn’t do it for you, like it didn’t do it for me, there are Islamic websites defending their peaceful interpretation of the Quran. They tell us all about the other, non-violent ways of Jihad.
“One form of Jihad, …. overlooked in today’s pursuit of newsworthy headlines, is the Jihad of presenting the message of Islam…. Thirteen years of the Prophet’s (saws) 23-year mission consisted purely of this type of Jihad. Contrary to popular belief, the word Jihad and related forms of its root word are mentioned in many Makkan verses in a non-combative context.” ~Islamic Supreme Council of America
Pursuit of newsworthy headlines? They seem to smack us in the forehead without us even trying to pursue them.
But maybe they have a point, about us ignoring the thirteen years of Muhammad’s life in which he didn’t kill infidels on a regular basis. We do tend to focus mainly on the ten years where he did.
On the “Islamic Supreme Council of America” website, they seek to assuage the reason of my, eyes, ears, and my disgust at the lives lost, to Jihad by extolling the virtues of Islamic law.
“In addition to the real possibility that these legal systems were profoundly influenced by the legal heritage of Islam, this commonality can be explained by the fact that the protection and endorsement of basic human rights form the cornerstone of Islamic legislation.” ~Islamic Supreme Council of America
(Click link for full Article )
The article proclaims the wonder of Islamic law, by saying it is at the foundation of much of the worlds laws today.
Yes Islamic, Sharia law, was probably, 1,500 years ago, part of a basis for modern law. Unfortunately, it forgot to modernize while the rest of the world’s laws did. Otherwise, while writing this I wouldn’t have had to read articles about a pregnant women on ‘Death Row’, awaiting her date for hanging, because she married a Christian.
In order to save you the exasperation of reading the Islamic Supreme Council of America article yourself. I will summarize it’s message;
“All this stuff about Islam being violent is just crazy!” ~ Thee Bloomin Idiot’s paraphrase of an entire article in one single sentence
After all Islam has laws and rules to follow, and would never resort to violence, unless the rules and laws dictate violence. No, Islam is a Religion of Peace. If there is any violence it is because the rules were broken.
Ok, I see, so this pregnant women being killed for marrying a Christian, and incidentally, being a Christian herself, is justifiable because it breaks the rules. Thanks for clearing that up! We good.
Forget what you see, forget what you hear, and forget the oceans of blood spilt in jihad’s name. Because, we see here in America, our Muslim neighbors are peaceful, so of course this stuff going on all over the rest of the world,……
HEY YOU!!!!……do not look over there! Look here instead. We, peaceable types, are the example of the real Islam, and everyone else is a poor example.
But is it?
“This isn’t some fringe belief in the Islamic world, mind you. In 2013, Pew Research conducted a poll of several Muslim majority countries. While it didn’t ask whether respondents thought blasphemers should be put to death, it did ask if respondents thought those who decided to leave Islam should be put to death, which is a pretty good proxy. Majorities in Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, for instance, all thought a person should be killed for converting to another faith or renouncing Islam altogether. Even a majority of respondents in supposedly moderate Malaysia thought this.” ~ Jamie Weinstein, The Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/09/the-truth-about-muslim-violence/
Why is it that these Muslim “extremists”, believe in the ‘jihad of making war’?
Why is it, pundits seem determined to tell us the ‘jihad of making war’ is not part of the Muslim faith?
Now I’m not a Muslim scholar, but I will refer to those who are, on both sides. The first place I’ll go, is a debate on the Al Jazeera program “Head To Head” with the esteemed Oxford and Muslim Scholar, Professor Tariq Ramadan. His grandfather was the founder of The Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan desires reform in Islam, but his way of encouraging it is a conundrum. He has managed to enrage both sides of the aisle.
Those engaging him regarding reform, and Islam in general are; the host, Andy Hassan and three guests, Anas Al Tikrit, (founder of Cordoba Foundation, political activist and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood), Yasmin Alhibhai-Brown (British Muslims for Secular Democracy), and Alan Johnson (Britain-Israel Comms Research Centre)
Click on below link for the full debate.
The point of this video and the quotes I take from it is, here is one of the ‘100 most influential men in the world’ according to Time Magazine, yet as you will see, though he desires to see reform in Islam he is unwilling to lead to see this happen.
After discussing the dismal performance of The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, following the ‘Arab Spring’, and basically agreeing to disagree on the reason the Muslim Brotherhood failed, Ramadan was asked what his thoughts were on reforming Islam.
” I would say what I am advocating is not to reform Islam. Islam does not need reform.”
“What I’m advocating is to reform the Muslim minds. Meaning that the problem is not in the text, the problem is not the Quran. The Quran, for Muslims, is the eternal revelation. It’s not in the prophetic traditions. The problem we have is with the readers, is the way we interpret the text sometimes, and we are not able to understand things into the historical context, and in our specific environment. So reforming the Muslim minds, yes. Reforming Islam, no way.“
In essence saying we need to interpret this holy book differently than it has been since it was written. Interesting defense to the violence of Islam, the readers are just getting it wrong. Reading to much into the text, things not contextually relevant, perhaps today? Things like Sharia Law?
So they discuss the death penalty for leaving the Muslim faith. Ramadan compares death, for leaving the Muslim faith, to the death penalty in the USA, for First degree murder. I’m not quite sure that equates favorably. It never is a good defense to say, but look at what they do! If you are going to, at least have an equitable example to hang your hat on.
After that glorious defense of the death penalty, for the abrogation of the faith, they moved on to the disparaging human rights abuses inflicted on women in Shariah Law. These abuses occur throughout the Muslim world (even unofficially here inUS).
Ramadan’s statements regarding the stoning of women for adultery, and the practice of beating unsubmissive women, are very telling.
Many feel Tariq Ramadan is part of the solution, but others say he is part of the problem, for not taking a stand and issuing a moratorium on stoning women.
Ramadan’s response was that there needs to be an internal discussion about the issue. The follow up questions and answers were as follows;
“(Hassan)…why not state your position?
(Ramadan) I’m against this.
(Hassan) Why because it’s wrong, or …. outdated, or what’s the actual reason?
(Ramadan) Because all the conditions and the understanding, the very essence of the text and the objectives is not respected if we implement this.”
In other words. The text of the Quran calls for it but there is a higher meaning to it, that gets lost in the actual act.
Notice what he didn’t say. He didn’t say it was wrong!
Hassan called Alan Johnson to respond to this, noting that Johnson had called Ramadan a coward, for not standing against these barbaric acts. The following exchange is hair raising, when we consider Ramadan as an example of an Islamic scholar that desires reform in the practices of jihad and how sharia law is implemented.
“(Alan Johnson) …when women are being stoned, I think it’s up to Democrats to take a firm position and take a stand and stand up for those women that are being stoned.
Muslims are integrating, there is a silent revolution going on, and you’re not offering those people who are trying to make a silent revolution anything useful.”
(Ramadan) My position on this is from within….. (through internal Islamic discussions)
(Johnson) Why don’t you lead and make the case?”
Precisely! I have heard over and over that there are many good, peaceful, Muslim men and women who don’t engage in violent jihad or sharia, yet prominent figures do not speak out and take a stand.
Here is Ramadan, considered one of the eminent Islamic Scholars, considered one of the most influential men in the world. And he can’t take a stand against this evil? Even when he supports reform?
If esteemed Oxford and Muslim Scholar, Professor Tariq Ramadan can’t, who can in Islam?
But remember, Ramadan doesn’t think the Islamic faith needs reformed. He just thinks the Muslim readers ‘minds’ need a tune up.
Why is it their minds are messed up?
What does it say when a man such as he, when given the opportunity, won’t challenge readers of the Quran, to reform their minds?
Alibhai-Brown gave the Professor just such a chance.
“(Alibhai-Brown) I do want to hear from you that there’s no moratorium on stoning, that it is wrong, and that it should never happen. I want to hear a direct sentence like that.
( Ramadan) No I’m not going to give that sentence.”
He won’t condemn the act. He says stoning is wrong and is problematic even in scripture, but that it needs to be addressed in debate, by looking at the reasons, the context, the historical aspects. That is the only way to change mindsets.
Unfortunately, in the mean time, no prominent Islamic authority condemns such actions, and so many Muslim readers continue to get things wrong, according to him.
In the following debate, between Zuhdi Jasser and Robert Spencer we see a moderate Muslim believer and a critic/researcher of Islam discuss what the muslim faith is today, and how it got there.
See below link for full debate.
In this debate, Jasser a moderate Muslim, made some curious remarks regarding his faith.
“Is there a moderate Islam? I don’t know.”
“Clearly we (Islam) have a crisis in leadership“
He states that much of what their leaders put forth today is stuck in the 13th century, and has not been modernized. Remember, he is the apologist in this debate, explaining why the ‘real Islam’ is actually moderate.
“I have yet to meet Muslim parents that would be proud of their kids to become an Imam or to become a Theologian.”
“They (his Muslim community) go to Mosque, they listen to the Imam, they disagree with a lot he says, and they don’t say anything.”
“They are the silent majority.”
I respect Zuhdi Jasser for his many appearances on Fox News and elsewhere, denouncing, what he sees as the hijacking of the Muslim faith, by these ‘fringe‘ Muslims.
Unfortunately, from these statements, I can infer, that apparently these, fringe Muslim, are practicing Islam, as it is taught, at times by the very Imams Jasser sits under.
I pondered the statement, why wouldn’t Islamic parents want their children to become Theologians, and Imams.
I didn’t have to ponder long until it was explained by Spencer, in his rebuttal.
” There’s a reason for that. Because Islam does teach violence and radicalism at the core, imbedded in the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad.”
He posits most Muslims as humans don’t want to strap on suicide bombs, and get all wrapped up in that radicalism, so they,
“…keep a distance from Islam as it is ‘Officially Codified’, and they live lives in accord with generally more western values.”
Spencer then poses the most important question,
“But the question is. What exactly is it, that Islam does say?”
Spencer provides the answer.
“The question of what Islam is can not be defined by Spencer, Jasser or Osama Bin Laden. The question, of what Islam is, is defined by what Islamic groups throughout history have used to define it, and that is The Quran and the teaching of Muhammad, and the teaching of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which have been fixed since the ninth century……(No orthodox view)… does not teach, that the community of Muslims worldwide have the responsibility to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them as inferiors. Depriving them of essential rights under the rule of Islamic law.
That is a universal that is taught among all sects and schools.”
Jasser wants to modernize his Islamic faith, but is his faith Islam? It does not appear so, not according to his own Imams.
Jasser, wants to teach his children of a God who is moderate not of a God that is immoderate, as Islam is teaching. That’s a fantastic idea, but does that God exist in Islam?
Jasser says, that Islam needs to ‘create’, new schools of thought, outside of the boxes they are currently fixed into. He wants Islam to ‘create’, new theology, so they don’t have to abandon what it means to be Muslim.
What does it mean to be Muslim, if you aren’t following the precepts taught by Muslim scripture, Imams, and traditions? Does Jasser make any sense at all, and how on earth is this in anyway a defense to a moderate Muslim faith. Instead it seems to be a call for a new religion altogether, based on his or other moderates own personal ideas of what the faith should be.
As Spencer states.
“Any reform (of Islam) must explain why that radical view of Islam must be rejected. You can’t wish it away or pretend it were otherwise.”
Spencer strongly makes the case that, the ‘radical’ Islamic leaders claim for themselves, the authentic faith, and they recruit other Muslims, by appealing to the Quran and appealing to Muhammad.
According to Jasser and Ramadan, modernizing Islam is the answer to the radical Islamist problem. They provide solutions such as; readers of the Koran, need to read the scriptures differently, or Islam needs to create new theologies, to better fit with what us moderate believers understand of Allah.
I’ve looked at video from all around the world of believers in Allah. The true believers do not seem to be the kind of folks who take kindly to being told, ‘you are just too serious about this Allah and his rules! Let’s come together and moderate.’
I wondered earlier, why Muslim leaders like Ramadan refuse to step up and denounce these acts? Spencer, provides the answer in the debate, giving several examples of Muslim leaders, killed for apostasy, by advocating unorthodox views.
In light of that, what do you think the chances are of Islam updating their Islamic software to Allah 2015! Somehow, I don’t think that’ll happen.
Jasser seems to be trying to make sense of this faith that he was raised in, and he finds it unpalpable. He wants to change it so he can digest it, and pass something, more suitable, on to his children, but it is, what it is!
Perhaps he should find a true religion of peace, instead of trying to create one.
In the meantime, we continue down the politically correct road of self destruction. We call an elephant a duck , and a snake, a lap dog. Our leaders provide cover for, as Jasser admitted, ‘a schizophrenic faith‘, where the so called moderates (who according to Jasser, disagree in silence) sit under the teaching of Imams. Teachings that haven’t changed since Muhammad himself lead the bloody jihads.
President Francois Hollande, says killings in France by Islamic extremism have nothing to do with Islam, while many of the communities in France are ‘no go’ places, due to the Islamic radicalism?
Back here, in the US, President Obama, speaks to attendees at a prayer breakfast. He throws the p.c. blanket over the uptick in Islamic barbarism, by spouting how there is an ‘equal opportunity’ to misuse fervor for religion.
He quips about us not being on our ‘high horse’, lest we forget the misdeeds of the ‘Crusades’! That often claimed impropriety of Christendom, which has wrought the wrath of Islam upon us today.
Bernard Lewis, noted historian of the Orient, and confidant of US Presidential administrations regarding Islam, upon entering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, provided this stinging refute of President Obama’s, bad use of history. Used by Obama to make a politically correct (but, uninformed) point.
“I would not wish to defend the behavior of the Crusaders, which was in many respects atrocious. But let us have a little sense of proportion. We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first papal call for a crusade occurred in
846 C.E., when an Arab expedition from Sicily sailed up the Tiber and sacked St. Peter’s in Rome. A synod in France issued an appeal to Christian sovereigns to rally against “the enemies of Christ,” and the pope, Leo IV, offered a heavenly reward to those who died fighting the Muslims. A century and a half and many battles later, in 1096, the Crusaders actually arrived in the Middle East. The Crusades were a late, limited, and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad—an attempt to recover by holy war what had been lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up.” ~ Bernard Lewis
The picture, shows the overwhelming number of Islamic attacks the very few Crusade advances attempted to counter. They most certainly were not unwarrented acts of aggression, bates Lewis stated a very poor imitation of the ‘jihad‘, they were responding to.
You’ve got to love revisionist history. The Crusades sound sort of like our current unwarranted aggression against Islam.
I suppose, Jihad could really just be peaceful, introspection. Yet, I have a nagging suspicion it’s probably not and some folks don’t want us to, understand what’s going on with Jihad, and it’s various intricacies!
Those folks are constantly trying to redirect our attention.
HEY LOOK OVER HERE!
Is it all just smoke and mirrors?
What do your eyes tell you, your ears tell you, and the spilt blood tell you?