Listen up, conservatives
You know how conservatives are all the time asking why, if Islam is a peaceful religion, Islamic leaders don’t condemn terrorism and violence?
“Islam says it’s all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop,” said senior cleric Mohammed Usman, a member of the Ulama Council — Afghanistan’s top Islamic organization. “We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam.”
What more do you want?
February 10th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Should it really surprise us that some Muslims know as little about what the Koran actually teaches as many “Christian” leaders know about their Bible? Hint: “Christian Homosexuals”
February 10th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
I say again:
He knows what he’s talking about.
Consider also the fact that there are nearly 700,000 followers of Islam. If all of them believed Islam was a religion of violence there’d be a lot more killing than there is now. Even these crazy protestors only represent a tiny fraction of that number.
February 11th, 2006 at 4:40 am
The real issue is not whether many Muslims support violence, but whether the Koran supports violence.
Also, if so many Muslims are against violence, how can Osama Bin Laden hide from the entire world for so long?
February 11th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Re: Osama: It isn’t that hard to hide in the middle of nowhere. If you were hiding in the Badlands of South Dakota, you’d be pretty difficult to find too.
Re: The Quran: The more popular interpretation of the word Jihad is “struggle”–as in a personal struggle through life. As in “fighting the good fight of faith.” The Quran can be interpreted to support violence, just like the Bible can. Just ask “Christian” abortion clinic bombers and members of the KKK if they were following the Bible.
February 11th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Re: Osama. Not hard to hide with the entire US military looking for you?
Re: The Koran. I’ve read too much of it to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion.
February 12th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
The entire U.S. military? Even government reports have stated that operations in Afghanistan were (and are) woefully underfunded and undermanned- the bulk of our people are in Iraq and honestly, when we failed to send in enough manpower on day one, we basically let Osama get away. There’s very little guarantee now that the guy is even still in Afghanistan (it wouldn’t surprise me at all to hear that he jumped the border into Pakistan somewhere). And really, we probably have more people stationed in Korea and Japan than we have on the ground in Afghanistan at the moment. The numbers there certainly pale in comparison to Iraq.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
The point is that any peace loving person in the world (Christian or Muslim) would report knowledge of Osama’s whereabouts. The fact that he can hide anywhere for any amount of time is testimony to the fact that Islam is not a peaceful religion.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:42 am
It could be testament to the fact that those who support Osama are, for whatever reason, seen as doing more for the communities in which they’re hiding than the United States or its soldiers.
There are millions of Muslims living in the Western world, as well as in loads of countries that aren’t the Middle East. If Islam was really as pro-terrorist as you’re implying, we’d be having 9-11s every single day, because every halfway devout Muslim on the planet would be trying to blow up nonbelievers. This isn’t happening. Look at Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on the planet- there were no burnings, riots or other violent protests there in relation to these cartoons. The same holds true for Malaysia, I believe. The issue may have more to do with cultural aspects of the Middle East than it does with Islam- people in that part of the world have been locked in tribal warfare and honor killings and all the rest of it since long before Mohammed showed up.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:10 am
I agree that not all Muslims are fundamentalist, but those who are (ie: who take the Koran literally) do support terrorism. I’m just saying that just like Christian fundamentalists take a correct approach to the Bible, Muslim fundamentalists take a correct approach to the Koran.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I would disagree, but then I’m not a Christian fundamentalist. Or Christian at all, actually, but that’s not really relevent here.
Fundamentalist Muslims believe that in order to truly live Islam, they have to be living back in the Middle Ages in terms of technology, societally, the whole nine. Is this really what the Qu’ran says? Having read it and the Hadith, I don’t think it is. Mohammed was trying to stop all of the honor killings and blood feuds- why would he want his followers to be continuing to engage in that kind of behavior hundreds of years after his death? Logically, I don’t think it makes sense. Of course, it clearly does to some people, or fundamentalist Islam wouldn’t have the following it does.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:20 am
Mohammed used force to spread Islam, a tradition that continues to this day.
February 16th, 2006 at 7:53 am
There’s quite a lengthy tradition of using force to spread Christianity, as well (Crusades and Inquisition, anyone?), but I don’t generally hear of Christians blowing up buildings as a means of “spreading the word,” as it were. And then there was the fact that compared to some of the alternatives, until relatively recently (say, the last century or so), Islamic states have been far, far more welcoming to non-Muslim people than those places that were Christian. Jews and Christians could live relatively peaceful lives in the Ottoman Empire so long as they payed the tax for unbelievers. It hasn’t been until this century (late this century, at that) that Jews and other non-Christians could live in Christian Europe unmolested.
Actually, even ancient Jewish leaders engaged in forced conversion back when Judea and Israel were still in existence as Jewish states but again, no signs of that particular tradition continuing today (quite the opposite, actually- conversion to Judaism is difficult, involves extensive study with a rabbi and generally takes anywhere from one to five years). I don’t think the argument that Islam spread through use of force works, because it’s not remotely exclusive to Islam. I would posit that between the Crusades, various pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition and other such historical events, there have been as many killed in the name of Christianity as have been killed in the name of Islam. Of course, Islam is the younger religion, and Christians these days seem to have mostly abandoned such tactics- but to me, the fact that Christians are no longer mounting armies to force conversion at the point of a sword is a good indication that there is also hope for change in the radical elements of Islam.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:41 am
I was just responding to the statement that “Mohammed was trying to stop all of the honor killings and blood feuds.”
You are correct in saying that force has been used to spread Christianity many times. But did this happen as a result of a fundamentalist approach to the Bible? The fact is most of these “crusaders” weren’t really grounded in biblical truth, but in a false, church-centred Christianity.
The ultimate question is, does a fundamentalist (or literal) approach to the Koran promote violence?