Interfaith Harmony between Islam and Other Religions?


can-islam-be-peaceful

John R. Houk

© February 6, 2017

 

My Brother in Christ Shamim Mahmood was involved in the Pakistan version of the World Interfaith Harmony Week is a feel-good annual global event instituted by the United Nations in 2011:

 

World Interfaith Harmony Week is an annual event to be observed during the first week of February starting in 2011.

 

World Interfaith Harmony Week was proclaimed by the General Assembly in resolution A/RES/65/5 adopted on 20 October 2010. In the resolution, the General Assembly, points out that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue constitute important dimensions of a culture of peace and establishes World Interfaith Harmony Week as a way to promote harmony between all people regardless of their faith.

 

Recognizing the imperative need for dialogue among different faiths and religions to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation among people, the General Assembly encourages all States to support during that week the spread of the message of interfaith harmony and goodwill in the world’s churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship, on a voluntary basis and according to their own religious traditions or convictions. (World Interfaith Harmony Week; United Nations) 

 

It is my opinion most of the world’s religions can have a cooperative dialogue; however once one or more religions become upset with one or more other religions proselytizing among adherents, then I suspect the cooperation will come to a screaming halt. And yet if competition halts cooperation, most religions are tolerant enough in their belief systems to not erupt into riotous violence in these modern days of the 21st century – THAT IS except one religion in particular. ISLAM!

 

Let’s look at the significant religious tenets of some major religions in relation to dealing with hostile people against a particular faith.

 

Buddhism

 

Much like Christianity Buddhism has various sects that I am not going to examine. There is a central belief among all Buddhists on violence even there is doctrinal disagreement on other issues.

 

The Buddhist tradition is most clearly associated with non-violence and the principle of ahimsa (“no harm”). By eliminating their attachments to material things, Buddhists try to combat covetousness, which in itself has the potential to become a source of anger and violence against others. …  Some Buddhist texts do sanction taking human lives in exceptional cases to protect the sangha or defend the innocent. However, most Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists today reject even these exceptional justifications of killing. … (Buddhism on Peace and Violence; Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World AffairsGeorgetown University)

 

More thoughts on contemporary Buddhism in regard to violence: Buddhism: Peaceful or Violent Religion? By ALAN PETO; AlanPeto.com; 6/23/13)

 

Hinduism

 

The subject of violence has engaged the best minds in India’s religious history. Although Mohandas K. Gandhi has made non-violence synonymous with Hinduism, the tradition has long recognized legitimacy of violence under some circumstances. The dominant, pragmatic approach has endorsed violence when necessary to protect one’s state or people from external or internal attacks. A divergent tradition, insisting on the complete renunciation of violence, was ascendant during the period of the Upanishads. It asserted that violent action must, by the law of karma, produce a violent reaction, and that any action that promotes the interest of one at the expense of another individual is rooted in spiritual delusion that obscures the single spiritual reality—Brahman. The conflict between these competing approaches to force constitutes the heart of the Bhagavad Gita, a dialogue between the god Krishna and the mighty warrior Arjuna, who refused to fight in a righteous cause. Krishna explains that violence is not only necessary for the defense of justice, but that such violence need not conflict with spiritual life. The contradiction between the two values is resolved by disciplined action (action without regard for its fruit), insightful action (recognizing the true nature of the self), and complete devotion to Krishna. (Hinduism on Peace and Violence; Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World AffairsGeorgetown University)

 

Most Americans think of Hinduism as a non-violent faith. Compared to Islam it is true but compared to the central tenets of Christianity (not often observed by history’s Christian rulers), Hinduism can have a violent side. Read these cherrypicked excerpts from the essay entitled “The Co-Existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Hinduism”:

 

The most famous Hindu of all times, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) is widely perceived, especially in the West, as embodying the Hindu worldview and ethos. Gandhi made ahimsa (non-violence) the cornerstone of his philosophy and practice and spoke of it as constituting the essence of Hinduism. …

 

n recent years, several Hindu organizations have become aggressive and militant in rhetoric and method, reminding us that while Gandhi championed the ethic of ahimsa, there are ancient traditions within Hinduism which sanction violence under certain circumstances and that ahuimsa and himsa (violence) have coexisted uneasily in Hinduism for centuries. The relationship between violence and non-violence is a complex one and Gandhi’s representation of Hinduism must be properly contextualized.

 

 

Vedic society in ancient India did not scrupulously adhere to ahimsa as its highest value. Sacrificial rites involved the slaying of animals and Indra, one of most popular deities of the Vedic period has many warrior-like attributes. While Manu (ca.200 B.C.E.-100 C.E.), ancient India’s influential lawgiver, lists ahimsa among the general human virtues, the ksatriyas are exempt. He permits killing in self-defence and for implementing the injunctions of the Vedas. Two of the most popular epics in the Hindu tradition, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata culminate in lengthy and violent battles.

 

… We see quite clearly from the Bhagavadgita that while the tradition upholds the ultimacy of non-violence, exceptions are made for the use of violence. The Mahabharata war is referred to, in the Bhagavadgita, as a dharma yuddha. A dharma yuddha is a war fought in defence of justice and righteousness and for the security and well being of the community (lokasamgraha). …

 

 

The final characteristic of a dharma yuddha that I want to mention is that violence is justified as a last resort and only after peaceful methods of conflict resolution are exhausted. …

 

It is clear, therefore, that there are influential traditions within Hinduism which justify the use of violence under certain circumstances and which understand the use of violence to be consistent with the Hindu world-view. While it is true that ancient texts, such as the Upanisads, refer frequently to ahimsa, these texts were traditionally meant for seekers of liberation (moksa) who had entered the last of the four stages of life (samnyasa). Such persons were ritually freed from social and familial obligations and dedicated to the quest for liberation. READ ENTIRETY (The Co-Existence of Violence and Non-Violence in Hinduism; By Anantanand Rambachan; World Council of Churches)

 

Christianity

 

The practice of Christianity as embraced by varying nations that would define themselves as Christian have not followed the tenets set down during the earthly walk of Jesus Christ and the Christ’s amplifications as placed into words by direct followers of Jesus Christ. Many atrocities have occurred in history by Christian rulers in the name of Christianity that I am certain the Lord Jesus would have rebuked them:

 

51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him [i.e. Jesus] to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”[a]

 

55 But He [i.e. Jesus] turned and rebuked them,[b] and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.[c] And they went to another village. (Bold text Editor’s – Luke 9: 51-56 NKJV)

 

Insulting Jesus was not lead to riotous violence. The Beatitudes sums up how Christians should act on a personal level:

 

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven
. (Matthew 5: 3-10 NKJV)

 

The Lord Jesus Christ continues with the Sermon on the Mount (excerpted for the point):

 

11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.

 

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

 

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[b] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5: 11, 21-25, 43-45 NKJV)

 

The New Testament is full of the sentiment of DO NO HARM. As an individual, this is a journey to ever closed to the paradigm of Jesus Christ. Don’t abandon the paradigm because of other’s actions, rather stay on your journey. If you slip into a ditch. GET UP! And crawl out of the ditch to get back onto the journey of the Christ paradigm.

 

Christians are to defend themselves though. The defense should not be acted out of hate or revenge. Rather the defense is to protect the community. Protection does not mean pillaging and raping. It means protection.

 

Islam

 

In full disclosure and if you haven’t figured it out, I am a Christian. I am definitely not a perfect Christian and yet I am devoted to Truth as presented in the Word of God, especially in the New Testament. One standard of trust in of whose I am is John 14:6:

 

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (Bold Text Editor’s NKJV)

 

I have to guess all religions believe they hold the keys of Truth. I don’t have a problem with that until anyone representing a different faith or secular ideology tries to force me to think divergently from the Truth I trust. One such religion targeting the belief system of Christianity are the writings revered by Muslims in the Islam way.

 

Christian Truth: Jesus Christ is the Son of God:

 

Matthew 16:13-17

 

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”

14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Bold Text Editor’s NKJV)

 

John 5:17-23

 

17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”

 

18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (Bold Text Editor’s NKJV)

 

Quran 19: 88-95

 

88. And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son.”

 

89. You have done an atrocious thing.

 

90. The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation

 

91. That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.

 

92. And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.

 

93. There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant.

 

94. He has enumerated them and counted them a [full] counting.

 

95. And all of them are coming to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone. (SAHIH INTERNATIONAL)

 

This Quranic section is a mere tip of the iceberg in the anti-Christian writings inherent in Islam. And I am not even going into the anti-Jewish sections and the violence that ordered upon Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims who do not bow in submission to Islam’s moon god allah and its pseudo-prophet Muhammad.

 

A website that provides a brief of more anti-Christian surahs can be located here: “Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God?

 

Keep this in mind my fellow believers in Christ Jesus the Son of God, Lord and Savior:

 

1 John 2: 18-19, 22-23; 4: 13-15; 5: 19-20

 

2:

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

4:

13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

 

5:

19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (NKJV)

 

My above thoughts are a demonstration of skepticism that the government of the Islamic Republic is serious about ending Islamic Supremacism in the Pakistan Constitution. If Pakistan amends their Constitution to deliver the same Religious Freedom – including the Free Speech to share a non-Muslim faith without fear of retribution – that Sunni Islam enjoys, then I will be less skeptical.

 

At any rate, below is Shamim Mahmood’s participation and hope of the success of interfaith harmony between religious faiths in Pakistan.

 

JRH 2/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

World Interfaith Harmony Week

 

Sent By Shamim Mahmood

Sent: 2/4/2017 7:21 AM

 

Power of interfaith transforms fear, anger & hatred into positive human relationship: Diplomats

 

Islamabad, February 04: Diplomats based in the federal capital have highlighted the fact that prevailing world security situation has necessitated need of interfaith harmony to convert the world into a better living place. It is high time for power of interfaith to work effectively to transform fear, anger and hatred into positive human relationship”.

 

Addressing a seminar titled “World Interfaith Harmony Week 2017” organized under the banner of “Parliament of the World’s Religions” [Blog Editor: The Parliament is an international organization. My antivirus software flags its website as a yellow risk. Wikipedia has a good history.] the Ambassador of Poland H.E Piotr Opalinski said that every person reserved the very right to manifest his religion or belief either individually or in community, with others and in public or private in worship, observance, he-mr-piotr-a-opalinski-polish-amb-to-pakistan-2practice and teaching without fear of intimidation, discrimination, violence or attack.

 

Piotr Opalinski reiterated that freedom of religion or belief was fundamental right of every human being.

 

H.E Ms. Marshal Anne, deputy head of European Delegation said that in the line with universal and EU human rights are committed to respecting, protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief within their borders.

 

While speaking at the occasion H.E Joao Paulo Sabido Costa, Charge d’Affaires of h-e-joao-paulo-sabido-costa-portugalPortugal proclaimed that States have a duty to protect all persons within their jurisdiction from direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion o belief, whatever the reason advanced for such discrimination.

 

Ambassador of “Parliament of the World’s Religion” Mr. Shamim said that limitations to this freedom have to be strictly interpreted. He said that minorities have been increasingly targeted in hate in the country. Faiths do not bind in limits but allows social harmony and mutual tolerance for a better and progressive society. It is need of the day to enhance mutual understanding, harmony and cooperation among people from all faiths, he added.

 

Reference to the General Assembly resolution adopted on 20th October, 2010, the Parliament of the World’s Religions has organized “World Interfaith Harmony Week” to promote mutual understanding and inter-religious dialogue to establish interfaith harmony.

 

Members of civil society, religious leadership, media personal and diplomats have attended the event.

 

Be Blessed,

Shamim Mahmood

 

SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan. First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad (Contact Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email is shamimpakistan@gmail.com, Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

shamim-masih-pakistani-christian-journalist

Shamim Mahmood

________________

Interfaith Harmony between Islam and Other Religions?

John R. Houk

© February 6, 2017

_______________

World Interfaith Harmony Week

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

Email: shamimpakistan@gmail.com 

FB: https://www.facebook.com/Eushaw

Journalist, Blogger and Social Reformer 
http://oiwerk.blogspot.com/

+92-300-642-4560

 

Islam: A Permanent World War


You will hear Multiculturalists, Muslim apologists and deceptive Muslims tricking a non-Muslim to convert to Islam way that Islam is peace. The pseudonymous writer Fjordman explains that Islam actually means submission. AND the followers of Islam are to use any means necessary – deception, violence and/or war – to get all the people of the world to submit to Islam either by keeping their religion (officially only the people of the Book; i.e. Jews and Christians) but submitting to the rules of Islam, convert to Islam or die for refusing submission to Islam.

Fjordman essentially posits that this very nature of submission means Islamic terrorism will be a permanent state of war (or terrorism) until total Islamization is achieved. Don’t be fooled by the propaganda of peace!

This was originally posted just after the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, but the recent violence of the San Bernardino Massacre still applies and will undoubted apply wherever literal allegiance to the Muslim belief of perfection in the Quran and Mohammed exist.

JRH 12/17/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

Islam: A Permanent World War

By Fjordman

Posted by Baron Bodissey

November 17, 2015 9:34 pm

Gates of Vienna

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

Fjordman Logo

On the evening of Friday November 13th 2015, Paris was shaken by a coordinated series of extremely brutal Islamic terror attacks that left at least 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. It is strongly suspected that the Jihadist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind these bloody attacks against multiple targets in the French capital.[1] This happened after the city had barely recovered from the Islamic massacre on the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo some months earlier.

Jihad Attack in Paris 11/13/15

On October 31, 2015, a Russian passenger plane crashed over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, killing 224 people. Russian and Western intelligence services have concluded that the crash was an act of terrorism caused by a bomb.[2] Jihadists associated with the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for this terror attack. If this is true, it means that militant Muslims from the Islamic State brutally murdered more than 350 Europeans in just two weeks.

Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam means peace. This is not true. The Arabic word Islam means “submission,” not peace. A Muslim is a person who submits. Technically speaking, it is true that the terms Islam and Muslim are derived from the same three-letter root (s-l-m) as the word salaam. Salaam means peace, just as shalom does in the related Semitic language Hebrew. Yet that does not mean that Islam is peaceful. On the contrary, it indicates that peace is only possible after submission to Islamic rule and Islamic law. Peace is identical with submission to Islam. The absence of sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of War and the House of Islam.

“It follows,” wrote the Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a dar-al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence… The universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”[3]

MB Logo with Hassan al Banna

Western audiences are perhaps familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood, a revivalist organization founded by Hassan al-Banna, which has included such individuals as the al-Qaida ideologue Sayyid Qutb and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State (ISIS). Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami (Party of Islam), was also one of the most influential Islamic ideologues of the twentieth century. He explained that the objective of Jihad, Islamic Holy War, “is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim is to bring about a universal revolution.” Maududi emphasized that while Jihad involves armed combat, Jihadists include all those who help achieve the ultimate goal of worldwide Islamic domination. Not just those who fight in the battlefield, but also the millions behind them who contribute to the effort.[4]

The scholar Andrew Bostom and others have clearly proven that Islamic culture has never been “tolerant” in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a modern myth. Constant humiliations and occasional outbursts of deadly violence against non-Muslims have been a continuous feature of Islamic life for centuries, encouraged by Islamic religious scriptures. This is not a recent phenomenon, and it goes for both major branches of Islam. There are theological differences between Shias and Sunnis, but while these matter to Muslims themselves, they are of secondary importance to non-Muslims. Both Shia Islam and Sunni Islam encourage Jihad expansion, doctrines of Islamic supremacy and violent hatred of non-Muslims.

According to traditional Islamic history, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was an agreement between Mohammad and his early Muslim followers in Medina, and the pre-Islamic pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca. This is alleged to have taken place in the year 628 of our era. It affirmed a ten-year truce, a “hudna” or period of temporary calm. However, this truce was broken as soon as the Muslims felt that they were in a stronger position vis-à-vis their non-Muslim neighbors. A true and lasting peace on equal terms with non-Muslims is impossible, according to Islamic law. In the end, Islam can and should be globally triumphant. It is important to recall that the Sunna or personal example of Islam’s founder Mohammed and his early followers is intended to be valid for all times and all places. The Treaty of Hudaybiyya is therefore not merely of historical interest; it remains crucial for understanding how devout Muslims relate to non-Muslims today.

The traditional hadith literature of Sunni Muslims confirm Mohammad’s tactical formulation when waging Jihad: “War is deceit.” (Hadith Bukhari 4:269).[5] In addition to this, we encounter the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya and kitman (concealment and disguise). This allows for Muslims to lie and cheat to others, if this can be used to further Islam’s cause. Such tactics are employed by Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims alike.

Muslim Terrorist with Quran & Gun

Jihad is eternal. It entails a conflict that will never end, until the supremacy of Islam, Islamic rule and sharia laws have been established worldwide. Any agreement with non-Muslims is viewed as a hudna, similar to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya which Mohammed himself made with his non-Muslim opponents. Such a truce exists only so that Muslims can grow in strength and regain the upper hand. As soon as they feel they have the advantage, Muslims are encouraged to go on the offensive against the infidels again. As Andrew Bostom notes:

“In fact the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, is that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are — muba’a, licit, in the Dar al Harb. As described by the great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht, ‘A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, — ‘in a state of war’, — ‘enemy alien’; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…’ And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being ‘harbis’ during endless razzias and or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the specific institutionalized religio-political ideology, i.e., jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders (and the further reaches of today’s jihadists) bloody, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, across the globe.”[6]

Islam contains elements of a traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience show us that Muslim societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives.

Notes:

1. www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/17/france-carries-out-fresh-isis-airstrikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/ Russia joins France striking ISIS stronghold in Syria. November 17, 2015.

2. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943 Russia plane crash: ‘Terror act’ downed A321 over Egypt’s Sinai. Nov 17, 2015.

3. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955), page 64.

4. Quoted in the book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, by Geert Wilders, page 78.

5. www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_272.htm Hadith 4:269. Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

6. Iran’s Final Solution for Israel. By Andrew G. Bostom, 2014. Page 44.

DONATE TO FJORDMAN: To contribute to Fjordman you need to go the bottom of this post at the Gates of Vienna looking for the Fjordman Logo with the words “Donate to Fjordman”.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

________________

Baron Bodissey posts

Gates of Vienna Homepage

I Found Clarity in my Thoughts of Islam


Moderates hold Islam bomb - Radicals lite Fuse

John R. Houk

© March 3, 2014

 

I don’t wish to sound too sophomoric (a favorite term used by one of my History Professors when a student or pundit said something he considered beneath his intellect), but I have to make that sound – SHAZZAM!

 

I just read an essay by Dr. Mary Habeck a PhD in history from Yale; a MA in International Relations from Yale and a BA in International Relations, Russian, and Spanish from Ohio State. Those are a lot of letters.

 

Dr. Habeck’s essay has brought the best clarity for me to understand Islam in that so-called fine line between Moderate and Radical. I use the term “so-called” because I have had quite a bit of difficulty in seeing the difference in beliefs between Moderate and Radical Islam even if there is a difference in practice.

 

Here is my difficulty with the concepts of “Moderate” and “Radical” within Islam. ALL practicing Muslims believe the Quran is the direct manifested word from their deity Allah as delivered from whom Muslims consider the perfect man their prophet Mohammed (or Muhammad or Mohamet or whatever depending in the time frame someone writes about this guy). That means the Quran is an absolutist holy document. Then the other commentaries on the Quran such as the Hadith and Sira (or whatever combination the Sunna is as part of the Sira – I am unsure of the difference between Sira and Sunna) are of value depending on which Muslim scholar majority opinion says which commentary are authentic or bogus. When there is wide agreement on authenticity on Muslim commentaries those commentaries are nearly as holy as the Quran in its force but still NOT the very word of Allah.

 

I reassert the word “ALL” because it doesn’t matter whether one is Moderate or Radical, all Muslims believe what I just wrote about the Quran, Hadith and Sira. What Dr. Habeck has accomplished for me is how the Moderate and Radical Muslim interpret the meanings of the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

 

A Muslim who contends that he/she is Moderate will undoubtedly respond, “Well DUHHHH!” However, in Dr. Habeck’s clarity I also comprehend why there is little public condemnation from a Moderate or as the good scholar Doctor writes, a “typical Muslim” about the terrorist actions of a Radical Muslim. The Moderate Muslim will consider the violence and harshness employed by Radical Muslims as un-Islamic. Even so the Radical Muslim STILL IS interpreting the Quran, Hadith and Sira from their original intent. Ergo even if the interpretation varies in implementation in the now, the Radical Islamic goals of global Islam, a global Caliphate and an absolute Islamic society governed by Islamic Sharia Law; the ends of Radical Islam do not differ from the ends of Moderate Islam. That which differs is the MEANS.

 

The Moderate (or “typical”) Muslim have updated their “MEANS” with modernity which is indeed is more peaceful than the “MEANS” of Radical Islam. Nonetheless, wherever Islam is already supreme a Moderate Muslim will view Islam as a superior way of life for society and law. This is the case even if Moderate Islam by activity is of a more peaceful manner. In an Islamic society Islamic Superiority is more than an ideological concept it is a norm that is sacrosanct. Hence when a non-Muslim is viewed as being insulting to that which holy even Moderate Muslims can be stirred to go nuts against that non-Muslim.

 

In Western society differences of opinion in ideology or religion are viewed as an individual right. Especially in the USA where we have enshrined Liberty in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Thus everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it does not elicit harm to individuals or the community. In America the radical side of Leftism which is an offshoot of Marxism which leads to absolute State control of individuals especially by force is frowned upon even by center-Left Americans. Also the radical side of the Right Wing such as unrestrained Capitalism-Free Market that harms individuals in the name of the bottom line of profit is frowned upon even by center-Right Americans. Also there are the violent Right Wingers that will utilize violence to bring racial superiority ideologies that leads to the harm of individuals is heavily frowned upon by center-Left and center-Right Americans. The key for Americans at the least unconsciously is the harm to individual Liberty.

 

The Right of individual Liberty is absolutely foreign in Islamic society. The actions, beliefs and Freedoms are viewed through the filter of submission to Allah. If an action, belief or perceived freedom deviates from submission to Allah as understood from the Quran, Hadith and Sira is unacceptable in Islamic society.

 

This is the real essence of the clash of societies when it comes to Western thought and Islamic thought!

 

Individual Rights are the very identity of Americans and to a filtered extent due to history to all Western influenced nations. Submission to Allah is the very identity of Muslims. As long as there is a U.S. Constitution Americans as a whole will not accept Islam. As long as the Quran is considered absolute closely followed by authentic Hadith and Sira; Muslims as a whole will not accept or conceive Liberty as a good thing.

 

Just to be clear – even though Dr. Habeck brought some clarity to my mind, I cannot speak that this is the same clarity that Dr. Habeck has a conclusion of an irreparable clash between Western Liberty and Islamic submission. In fact the essay I read “Attacking America: Al Qaeda’s Grand Strategy in Its War with the World” is less about an inevitable clash between the West and Islam and more about American leaders underestimating the global agenda of Radical Islam especially as embodied in the Islamic terrorist organization al Qaeda. Even so – I have clarity about America and Islam. And thus I feel actually feel better about distrusting all of Islam in general. This is the case even if I am labeled an Islamophobic bigot. If the love of America makes me a bigot, then a bigot I will be when it comes to Islam.

 

JRH 3/3/14 (Hat Tip: Foreign Policy Research Institute)

Please Support NCCR