| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bullocks
66 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2005 : 05:56:51 AM
|
Article from the CDL main page:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the author suggesting the Koraan advocates terrorism and violent behaviour?
And she used the following an example -
"Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind."
this is subject to personal interpretation, so I think the way she's building her case is erroneous
Anyway that's my personaly opinion
-----------
When Denial Can Kill
We Muslims must admit that our religion might be motivating the bombers
by IRSHAD MANJI*
July 25, 2005 (©TIME Magazine with permission)
I was surprised last week to learn how easily some Westerners believe terrorism can be explained. The realization unfolded as I looked into the sad face of a student at Oxford University. After giving a speech about Islam, I met this young magazine editor to talk about Islam's lost tradition of critical thinking and reasoned debate. But we never got to that topic. Instead, we got stuck on the July 7 bombings in London and what might have compelled four young, British-raised, observant Muslim men to blow themselves up while taking innocent others with them.
She emphasized their "relative economic deprivation." I answered that the lads had immigrant parents who had worked hard to make something of themselves. I reminded her that several of the 9/11 hijackers came from wealthy families, and it's not as if they left the boys out of the will. Finally, I told her about my conversation three years ago with the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. "What's the difference between suicide, which the Koran condemns, and martyrdom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for--and they detonated it anyway.
By this time, the Oxford student had grown somber. It was clear I had let her down. I had failed to appreciate that the London bombers were victims of British society. To be fair to her, she is right that marginalization, real or perceived, diminishes self-esteem. Which, in turn, can make young people vulnerable to those peddling a radical message of instant belonging. But suppose the messages being peddled are marinated in religious rhetoric. Then wouldn't you say religion plays some role in motivating these atrocities?
The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.
That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise. Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, left behind a note asserting that "it is enough for us to know that the Koran's verses are the words of the Creator of the Earth and all the planets." Atta highlighted the Koran's description of heaven. In 2004 the executioners of Nick Berg, an American contractor in Iraq, alluded on tape to a different Koranic passage: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil.
For too long, we Muslims have been sticking fingers in our ears and chanting "Islam means peace" to drown out the negative noise from our holy book. Far better to own up to it. Not erase or revise, just recognize it and thereby join moderate Jews and Christians in confessing "sins of Scripture," as an American bishop says about the Bible. In doing so, Muslims would show a thoughtful side that builds trust with the wider communities of the West.
We could then cultivate the support to inspire cross-cultural understanding. For instance, schools throughout the West should teach how Islamic civilization helped give birth to the European Renaissance. Some of the first universities in recorded history sprang up in 3rd century Iran, 9th century Baghdad and 10th century Cairo. The Muslim world gave us mocha coffee, the guitar and even the Spanish expression olé! (which has its root in the Arabic word Allah). Muslim students would learn there is no shame in defending the values of pluralism. Non-Muslim students would learn that those values took great inspiration from Islamic culture. All would learn that Islam and the West are more interdependent than divided.
Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It's not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, moderate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield--one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbors from genuine understanding.
|
|
|
Samir
Lebanon
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 09:37:58 AM
|
I had a different read than yours Bullocks.
She says "The spirit of that verse forbids aggressive warfare, but the clause beginning with except is readily deployed by militant Muslims as a loophole. If you want murder and villainy in the land, they say, look no further than U.S. bootprints in Arab soil."
The clause beginning with except: "except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land" this is the loophole used by militants to justify their mass murders. What she is calling for is for Muslims to discuss a new interpretation that closes these loopholes. For example, to forbid an individual muslim to take such matters as aggressive warfares in his own hands. Today we have states, we have majales shawra, if there need to be a warfare in the name of Islam, it needs to come from these authorities, not from individuals or groups. After all most of these groups are using Islam as a shield to commit atrocities.
Christianity did the same in the past against the Jews (Damouhou 3alayna wa 3ala awladina) was for long interpreted to mean kill the Jews anytime anywhere. It was not until the late 20th century that the Christians rectified the use and interpretation of this clause. The Jews did the same with many of the clauses of the Tora, especially those that call to kill and mayhem the canaanites and any other non-jew (Kafer or mushrik).
Wha Irshad is saying, is that Muslims should do the same as far as confessing the "sins of the scripture." In that she means the ability to interpret the scripture liberally, including a manner that can be construed to commit terrorism. |
 |
|
|
Jean
Lebanon
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 10:27:10 AM
|
Not being a moslem, things I say may be irrelevant or misintereted as offensive. I mean no offense or disrespect.
But I think in every religion, there needs to be an open dialogue. Christianity had this dialogue and there were many reforms: none of them changed the text of the scripture but many of them brought in new interpretations and practices with the historic Lutheran reform movement (Protestant).
As students, we were tought the history of the Arab world and the Islamic State under elkhilafa (Rashideen wa oumawiyyen); There was always a leadership (civic/spiritual) in the Islamic world. Today, I see a total lack of spiritual leadership particularly among Sunni Islam (I mean marja3iyya waheda with spiritual and civic authority) that spans the Islamic world. This leaves the door open for any individual or group to interpret things the way they want, which is fine when dealing with spiritual matters. But you get to civis application, there needs to be a uniform consensus. Is Islam in the world trying to dictate a new civic code (behavior, dress, laws, economics, politics, wars, defense)? Or is it just a spiritual calling?
Many scholars say it is both. That being the case, who sets the rules for the civic role of Islam?
It seems that Bin Laden and militants like him, have taken it upon themselves to play that role. No moslem authority has come out and challenged the likes of Bin Laden (Al-Jihad Al-Islami, El-Elkhwan, El-Tawheed, etc.) in their approach or their Islam.
For outsiders, these are the face of Islam. For Moslems they may not be true moslems, but no one else is doing anything that constructively overshadows these movements or silence them, and gives a face-lift to the second major monotheistic religioin in the world.
It is a daunting reminder of the Church in the Middle ages (pre-Renaissance).
Even if you listen to Al-Jazeera (international port-parole of the Islamic world), the focus there is always on wars and struggle and resistance when it comes to Islam. There is no positive message. and this is the image the world outside sees. For the world outside, this is the face of the New Islam: Terror.
For us in Lebanon, we know otherwise, because we live and work with moslems all the time. Honestly, I cannot differentiate between my friends whether they are Moslems or Christians when we sit together or go out together. But even here, we are told that they may not represent what Islam is about. Even them, they have self-doubt sometimes about their behavior and whether it conforms to true Islam. For me I see nothing wrong in them. Thay are just regular guys.
I was surprised by an editorial by Ghassan Tueini in Annahar this week that seems to be addressing the topic from a similar angle to that of Irshad Manji:
"ثورة ثقافية" في الإسلام و"جهاد" ضد الإرهاب
"ماذا يريد لبنان من سوريا؟"
بدل هذا السؤال السمج المستَغرَب الذي ابتكره وأطلقه في بيروت النائب العربي في الكنيست الاسرائيلية ذو الفكر العريق الدكتور عزمي بشارة... المطلوب أن يُسأل لبنان ماذا يطلب من عرب اليوم ومن المسلمين أجمعين لمواجهة موجة الارهاب المتصاعدة، والتي تهدد بتصحير دنيانا والعودة بنا الى عصر أهل الكهف!
وبتعبير أوضح وأكثر واقعية: هل المطلوب، وهل هو المثال الذي نتوق إليه أن تتحوّل ديارنا كلها صحارى افغانستان كبيرة، وأن نعمل على هدم وتحطيم معالم كل حضارة كما حطّم "الطالبان" التماثيل التاريخية العظيمة، وكما اجتاحت الدهماء متحف بغداد، وصولاً الى الفتك بالابرياء والنسوة والشيوخ كما في الجزائر بالامس (وعلى أيدي "الافغان العرب"!)، ثم هدم المعالم الاقتصادية كما في شرم الشيخ وبيروت والرياض لمنع كل رقي وهدر الثروات التي تكاثر تدفقها على العرب نتيجة مواردهم الطبيعية، قد يتلاقى الحكم الرجعي مع الارهاب في منع توظيف هذه الثروات في التنمية الاجتماعية والتربية والترقية الإنسانية على دروب الحرية وتعميم ممارسة الحقوق الطبيعية؟
***
ما هو المطلوب؟
المطلوب تجاوز البيانات الطوباوية باستنكار الارهاب والدعوات النظرية الى مكافحته، ثم الإقلاع عن ترداد الدعوات الاكاديمية الى الحوار بين الاديان والحضارات للانتقال الى بلورة "ثورة ثقافية" عملية مباشرة (كالتي قامت في الصين في نهاية القرن السابق). ثورة عربية مشرقية جامعة تستوحي نهضتنا التنويرية التي شهد مطلع القرن العشرين كبوتها... ثورة تتأصل في تراثنا الاندلسي وعصورنا الذهبية العتاق، كأيام هارون الرشيد والمأمون، إنما من غير ان تأسر نفسها في "سَلَفية" تاريخية تدّعي التنوير وتمضي "تستكفر" الناس وتبتكر لكل حملة كفّارها بأساليب من العنف غريبة عن طبائعنا العربية الصافية وعن روحانية إسلامنا المشرقي المنفتح على الآخر، لتلّفنا في ظلامية تذكّرنا بهمجية الفتوحات البربرية كالتي أحرقت بغداد مرة بل مرتين وأذابت النهضة الأموية، وتسببت في النهاية بسقوط الأندلس.
المطلوب، من أعماق نفوسنا المقهورة وقلوبنا الدامية والعقول المتسربلة باجتياح الإرهاب الفكري لها...
المطلوب تحرير بصيرتنا من الزهو بالعنف العبثي، كما من الخوف من أربابه وأصحابه... ثم انتزاع زمام "الحرب على الارهاب" من "الاستعمار الاميركي" المتنكّر بها ليستبيح خيراتنا ويؤبّد احتلال أرضنا والدول والانسان العربي!!!
وحدها الحرب، الحرب العربية الحقيقية على الإرهاب، تخوّلنا وتمكّننا من اخراج جيوش الاحتلال من العراق... وهي الجيوش التي يدّعي الارهاب مقاومتها، في حين ان ضحاياه من العراقيين الأبرياء، ومن تهديم ما تبقى من معالم العمران العراقي والاقتصاد العراقي يفوق أضعاف أضعاف الخسائر "الامبريالية"...
أفما آن أوان المصارحة في العمق؟
فلنتصارح... نحن نستمرّ نموّل الارهابيين، من حيث ندري أو لا ندري، ونستمر نشرعنهم، من حيث نريد وغالباً من حيث لا نريد... وكأننا في ذلك نشتري استغفاراً عن بيانات الاستنكار والتنديد -- ومعظمها خفِرة خجولة، بل مائعة، تستنكر بلسان اليمين لتؤيد أحياناً بلسان اليسار -- ... وكلنا يظن أنها تردع الهياج الجامح الذي نسكت عن مدارسه أو نستطيب اقناع الذات بأننا عن ذلك لعاجزون!!!
ونترك الجنرال مشرّف، رئيس باكستان، المسلمة انما غير العربية، والأبعد منا عن تراث التسامح والتنوير، يرسم خطوط "الثورة الثقافية" المطلوبة ذاهباً الى الاعماق، الى المطالبة بتعديل برامج التعليم الديني ومنع منابر الوعظ الداعي الى التطرّف... فضلاً عن القمع بالقوة ومقابلة العنف بالأعنف منه.
***
حكامنا العرب؟ ماذا عنهم؟
يتنادون من غير تجاوب وكأنهم في جوقة موسيقية يعزف فيها كل منهم على هواه، من غير أن يكلف نفسه حتى عناء الاستماع الى الآخر!... صحيح؟... كيف؟...
مثلاً، بيان الرئيس حسني مبارك أول من أمس، كأنه رجع صدى لنداء الامير عبد الله ولي العهد السعودي الى الحكام العرب لعقد مؤتمر قمة لمقاومة الإرهاب...
وفي عمان؟... من أشهر، انعقد مؤتمر وزراء الأوقاف والأئمة والمفتين وعلماء الدين، كذلك لإعلان تكفير الارهاب وانه ليس هو الجهاد الذي يتقنّع به الإرهابيون زوراً؟
ولم يحصل بعد ذلك شيء... سوى مزيد من البيانات... بينما مزيد من الارهاب يتصاعد عنفاً، والضحايا البريئة يتزايد عددها وتتكاثر مواقعها...
... ومزيد من التهويل، يجتمع عليه الضدّان، القاهرة ودمشق، بإمكان وصول أحزاب "الاسلاميين" الى الحكم، اذا أطلقت الحريات الديمقراطية. كأنما وصول "الاسلاميين" هؤلاء سيجعل الدول تعتمد هي الارهاب الذي لا يطلب حكماً، ولن تزيده السلطة مما ينعم به الآن وهو يعارضها... وقد حوّل بعضها الارهاب الى سياسة الاغتيالات الفردية التي لا تُبقي للحوار الديمقراطي مكاناًً ولا مقاماً !!! مفهوم؟
***
من أين نبدأ؟
يلبي الحكام دعوة الأمير عبد الله، المطلوب منه تكرارها مع تعيين زمان ومكان ملزِميْن، وجدول أعمال من ثلاث نقاط:
1 اعلان الحرب على الارهاب بكل الوسائل، وتوقيع المعاهدة الدولية التي تؤخرها دولنا في انتظار استكمال التمييز بين معنى الارهاب ومعنى المقاومة الوطنية. وهي مناقشة "بيزنطية" لن تنتهي، فالحرب على الارهاب ليست رهن نصوص نتفنن في صوغها ببديع البلاغة والبيان... واما "المقاومة" فلا تمنعها المعاهدات متى يتبرر انطلاقها، وهي تكتسب شرعيتها والمشروعية من صدق انتصاراتها وتحاشي وقوعها – كما هو الخطر القائم في غزة – في شرك "الحلف الموضوعي مع العدو" إذا هي أدت الى حرب أهلية!!! وثمة من يدّعي ان العدو ، بجهنميته المعهودة لا يبخل ولن يبخل اذذاك بالذخائر والسلاح على المتحاربين بدون تمييز... وقد آن أوان الكلام الصريح، ولو كان جارحاً.
2 يضع الحكام، وتضع الدول جانباً الخلافات التي صارت تافهة على عقائدياتها وأنظمتها ومحالفاتها وديبلوماسياتها، لتعلن ثورة مشتركة، نابعة من الاعماق وتستنهض الشعوب بدل قمعها: ثورة مصمِّمة على بلوغ أعمق الأسس والقواعد في كل حقل. ثورة "ثقافية" بمعنى أنّها ثورة على كل المفاهيم القائمة حالياً والتي ادت الى تقهقرنا في كل حقل، من العلم وكل حقول المعرفة، الى التنمية، الى الهزائم العسكرية والخيبات السياسية.
... وآن لنا ان نسأل الذات، بعقل نقدي نيّر، هل نحن مفطورون على الانهزام، ونأبى الاتعاظ والتغير لننتصر ولو مرة؟
لقد آن لدولنا والأنظمة والشعوب أن تكفّر الارهاب في إجماع حافل وعلى كل المستويات، مستويات الحكم والشرعية والدين وكل اجتهاد، وان تعترف بأن الارهابيين المجهولي الهوية قد خطفوا مفهوم "الجهاد" شعاراً، كما "استرهنوا" زوراً حقوق الافتاء وتحليل الخطف والقتل والدمار والنهب والسرقة والابتزاز... وأخيراً إنّ "الجهاد" الحقيقي الحلال هو مكافحة الارهابيين ومحاربتهم وترويعهم وافقارهم واضطهاد كل من ينتمي اليهم أو تستهويه رومانسيتهم العدمية الهدامة.
3 اعلان الشروع فوراً في منع ومكافحة كل "تبشير" ووعظ تحريضي، وتعيين لجان ومفوضين شرعيين لتطهير برامج الإعلام والتربية من "أدبيات" الحقد والإجرام والتكفير وعدم الاعتراف بالآخر.
***
... وماذا إن لم نفعل؟
ماذا اذا لم نواجه العالم بثورتنا هذه، وماذا اذا لم نعلن هذا الجهاد الحقّ، وماذا اذا لم ننتزع نحن قيادة "الحرب على الارهاب"؟
إذا لم نفعل، فستترسّخ الصورة التي يجمّلها اعداؤنا والتي تجعل كلمة العربي والمسلم مرادفة للارهاب والتخلف والدمار، وسيتزايد الغضب علينا ولا من يؤيدنا، بل يجري حصارنا وعزلنا.
ولن ينصرنا في حرب الارهاب المقلوبة التي نكون قد فرضنا خلالها على أنفسنا دور الضحية... بينما ينصرنا العالم بأسره ويساعدنا اذا نحن كنا في موقع المقاتل ضد الارهاب.
ويجب ان ندرك أنه لن يُجدينا عناد ولا تصعيد في الارهاب المنسوب الينا، لأن التصعيد هذا سيقابله تصعيد ليس في متناولنا التصدّي له بانتصار! ويتحوّل ارهابنا الى ارهاب ذاتي، يدمّر بنانا الاجتماعية والثقافية والسياسية، ويقودنا على درب العدمية الى الارهاب الذاتي، الى التصحير، فالتدمير الذاتيّ، فـ... الاستعمار المعمّم.
غسان تويني
|
|
|
|
dana
Canada
27 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 2:47:38 PM
|
I'm personally not a great fan of Irshad Manji, although I agree with her article somewhat.
She has a show running here in Canada, and quite frankly watching her in interviews talking to religious Muslim figures was not always very comforting. She speaks so fast, cuts people off in discussion - sounds like she's putting up a case as an aggressive lawyer would, with no diplomacy what-so-ever. She just didn't impress my with her style of communication, and I felt she could be a little bit more patient & respectful in her approach especially when she's discussing such a controversial topic. That's just my opinion of course.
I do agree with Jean that there should be one set of interpretations, especially to the "do's" & "don'ts" as revealed in the Quran, specifically when it comes to situations where some kind of affirmative action is required & religious individuals look to the Holy Book for answers. That should not be left to each individual as it could be taken out of context, just like in the case of "Jihad" where it is meant as the struggle with ones-self...more of a spiritual self-guided experience which takes place in your heart, your mind - within yourself only.
The spiritual aspect of any religion should be left to each individual's personal preference. Muslims put a lot of emphasis on the "action" part of worship...how to pray, how to avoid certain foods, how to say different dua's (du3a) in different situations, etc. We seem to forget that it took prophet Mohammad 13 years to teach the basic concept of tawhid (One God) to his original followers. Imagine thirteen years. We now have people who pick up several books and read them like novels and claim to be scholars and clerics!
I believe Muslim religious figures of the world should come together & literally call out to the Muslim community and ensure everyone is being fed the right information in light of what's happening around the world. But I also believe other religious communities, especially in the West, should be calling out to their respective communities to learn & understand what Islam is about so that it's not left to each individual to interpret Muslims as a bunch of radicals, or uneducated group of people which is what a large majority in the West think based on what is shown on TV (images are always of poor communities where they are portrayed as those with no where to turn than to these "unofficial" group leaders who play on these poor people's vulnerability).
In general though, looking back historically, religion has always been used as an excuse for war. So are these radical groups really "people of faith"? I beg to differ. They are groups who are feeling deprived as a nation, and/or feeling the need to help their Brothers & Sisters tied up in countries like Palestine, Afghanistan & Iraq through the means of war & aggressive retaliation. It's amiable for anyone to think of standing in support for those in dire need of help, but it always seems to be a political reasoning. Always about wealth & power. Survival of the fitis I guess. I ask these extremist groups what they are doing to help people in Sudan who are being massacred, the people of Thailand & area who are in need of rebuilding an economy devastated by natural disasters, those in poverty in Africa even & elsewhere. Where is the solidarity there for our Muslim Brothers & sisters? That part of Islam should be show-cased on an international level, not what is being portrayed currently. And not only towards improvished Muslim countries, but all others as well - despit their religion.
This is why we have people who don't wish to belong to any religion. They believe in God, but that's where it stays. I have spoken to several of them who tell you, religion is the evil which has caused & continues to cause much divide & wars between people. Although they credit religion for teaching moral values at least. This is not what we want to continue teaching generations to come. Judaism & Christianity have gone through scrutiny & now Islam. It shouldn't have to be this way.
We need to have solidarity all across the board & break down artificial barriers of religion and race. Instead of anger & aggressive physical retaliation, fight back with words instead. There seems to be an unrecognised power of words - the value of the individual word. Irshad Manji is applying it in her books, her tv shows, her interviews, she's getting her message across. Why can't we have a group of thought leaders advocating to all religious groups alike all over the world advocating a single message, and responding to these immediate questions? If they are out there, they are not loud enough. We can't hear you. Please speak up. |
|
|
|
Truth Squad
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 11:26:03 PM
|
Dana, you seem to be familiar with Manji's style and message.
Do you have any idea how well does her message resonate with Muslims around the world?
You saidquote:
I believe Muslim religious figures of the world should come together & literally call out to the Muslim community and ensure everyone is being fed the right information in light of what's happening around the world. But I also believe other religious communities, especially in the West, should be calling out to their respective communities to learn & understand what Islam is about so that it's not left to each individual to interpret Muslims as a bunch of radicals, or uneducated group of people which is what a large majority in the West think based on what is shown on TV (images are always of poor communities where they are portrayed as those with no where to turn than to these "unofficial" group leaders who play on these poor people's vulnerability).
I happen to agree with you on the first part of your statement. It is the role of Muslim leaders and clerics to emphasize the tolerant aspects of Islam in their public speeches, and become a part of the war on terrorism in fact not just in words: ban the militants from the Mosques, deccry any association with them and expose them to the authorities. Whether you like or not, terrorists are hailed as heros in many muslim societies today; why? Where is the outcry of Islamic leaders against this false idolatry? {on that check: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4744865.stm)
On the other hand, why do you ask non-Muslim communities to educate themselves about Islam or Islamic communities? By the same logic, do you ask the Saudis or the Iranians to learn about Southern Baptists or Catholics or Buddhists or Jews? NO. If they happen to learn anything about them, it is what the Islamic cleric tells them, not beyond. At least Western societies allow us the chance to learn about other cultures and seek knowledge freely. Most Islamic countries today do not afford their citizens this luxury. They use the state and its resources to endoctrinate the citizenry on the faith of the ruler, from Iran to Saudia Arabia to the Gulf States, and northern Africa. It is a sad reality but it is a reality.
Freedom to learn and access to information are guaranteed rights in the West, but a forbidden luxury in most of the Islamic World. Why? What happened to "Ask for Knowledge even in China"? Where are the true Muslims? Where is the Islamic Spiritual Revolution today that will put an end to those terrorist militants ans free the minds of Islamic youths to search for knowledge?
Reform has to come from within Islam, not without. In as much as other religions have had their historic revivals, it is time for Islam to have its own revival, unless Bin Laden and his likes have made the first move in that direction. |
|
|
|
Gisèle
Lebanon
36 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 11:23:27 AM
|
Manji makes a good point. No one can deny that most if not all terrorist attacks on civilians around the world were carried by Moslems, waiving the banner of Islam high as their guide, claiming "Jihad" as their guiding principle.
We hear many Islamic leaders say that this not the true nature of Islam, that Islam is a religion of peace.
Not being a religious scholar myself, I cannot judge the true nature of Islam, but as a student of history, I can see that Islam throughout history has spread in the world, not through love and peace but more through wars of Jihad against the infideles. Until this rhetoric in Islamic teaching changes (that is fighting and killing the infideles [all non-moslems] in the name of God), Islam will be at war with the rest of the world.
And I say non-Moslem world, beware!!! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Article For discussion
Forum Locked
