Would like to understand you people..

[Insaanah]

Sorry for the typos. I did that in an incredible hurry.

 

[Woodrow]

Sorry for the typos. I did that in an incredible hurry.

PM me the typos you want corrected and I will correct them. I see a few things I think are typos, but I do not want to correct them without knowing if they are or are not typos.

 

[Thomas]

"We are led to believe that it disadvantages women in particular and we have just spent the past 40/50 years creating equality of the sexes here. We also hear of religous police and all that kind of things. Much of it may be neccessary wory but we dont know enough about muslim way of life. On the surface, it doesn't look very attractive. That may be quite wrong but we dont know and the current thinking is 'stop them coming'.

I am sorry that this thread has taken on the vein that it has. It would be nice if we could accept people's questions and anxieties for what they are without going on the back foot. The issues Thomas has raised are of real concern to many English people. Partly, that is Muslims fault for not talking to people about their religion as io mentioned before, and that breeds fear. People, especially if they don't know any Muslims in person, then take whatever they see in the media, which quite frankly, can be a load of old tosh.

Thoams, you said you did want to learn a bit more about Muslims. I am guessing one of your anxieties is shariah law and what you hear about it. I guess you are thinkong that there'll be so many Muslims here eventually that we will all have to live under that barbaric and monstrous shariah law.

Firstly, can I say, that Islam is the only non-Christain religion which makes it an article of faith to believe in the central figure of Christianity, ie Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). If a person calls himself a Muslim and doesn't
believe in, respect, or love Jesus (peace be upon him) then he is NOT a muslim. NO other religion has this stipulation.

We believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was one of the mightiest messengers of God.
We believe that he was the messiah, translated as christ.
We believe he was born miraculously without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians today do not believe.
We believe that he gave life to the dead with Gods permission.
we believe he healed those born blind and lepers with Gods permission

However we don't belive tht Jesus ever claimed divinity, or that he was God, son of God, or where he said worship me.
We also do not belive that he was crucified.

We belive in all prophets whether we have heard of them or not. That includes the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). We are not allowed to pick and choose those we believe in. We also belive in the existence of all the books of God i.e. Bible, Torah, Psalms of David (peace be upon him), and any other books that we have not been told about, revealed before our time. We also believe in the angels, and day of judgement.

Shariah law is very firm but very fair. Can I ask and I hate to ask this question, but what would you want to do say if somebody raped one of the ladyfolk of your family. Most people say, "I'll kill them". Islam gives the same punishment that you yourself would give if that crime was perptrated against you or your family. Yet, when we hear that punishment has been applied to the rapist of someone else's wife/daughter/sister/mother, people say it's barbaric. Hmm...double standards eh? There is also the option for forgiveness too, which our law (I think) doesn't recognise at the moment.

Women.Islam was the first religion to make the woman a legal entity in her own right. The first religion to allow her to earn, own and dispose of her own property as she pleased. The first religion to insist on women receiving a share of inheritance. Muslim women in some Muslim countries do not take on the husbands surname on marriage, as that was a remnant from the slave trade. In Europe women were perceived as being owned by the man on marriage, Like the Palmers and the Williams amongst Afro Carribeans on the plantations. Women in Islam have so many more rights that they have been enjoying and taking for granted hundreds of years before these rights appeared in Europe.

Most people don't understand why a woman would want to cover her face. That lack of understanding makes them think someone must have forced to do it. Some of the women in face veils are the most feminist, opinionated, educated women you could ever hope to meet, and they could describe to you with deep conviction and faith why they personally chose to wear it.

Please do not lose heart if people have been hot headed with you.
I invite you to study more about Islam and ask more questions.

I pray that God guides us all to his straight true path. Amen. Peace

Hi Insaan
Many thanks for your very nice and informative post.
All I ever wanted was to express milions of English people's concerns and seek reassurance but the majority of replies have been defensive as if I am on the attack. Yes, I am entitled to ask questions and if Muslins want to come here in large numbers I think it reasonable to know more. The worst was from a lady who was personally abusive and completely missed the point as I was not questioning her authority to live under sharia law in her own country. As far as I am aware I have, all along, emphasised that I am only concerned with sharia law being applied in uk. How Muslims operate in other parts of the world is entirely up to them. If so many English people are worried enough to make it one of the main planks of the forthcoming election there must be a reason for it. For this reason, of course I am generalising. I may be misinformed but I am not an isolated freak. I wish I had had a better reception but I am not going to let this experience make my current concerns any worse. God Bless you too Insaan

P.S. Is the use of the word MOSLEM a rude expression in respect of Muslims?
What is the most polite way of address?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Suicide is forbidden in Islam. The killing of innocents and non-combatants is forbidden, the killing of anyone by the use of fire is forbidden. I believe that suicide bombers are acting contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Woodrow, you (and most, but not all, of the rest of the Islamic community here) have been consistent in your affirmation of the tolerance of Islam for other people's beliefs and its abhorence of these forms of violence. For that I thank you. But, maybe you can help me with something else I see with regard to Islam globally.

Given that suicide bombers are, in your words, acting contrary to Islam, why is it that there is more outrage expressed over a Danish newspaper cartoon or the naming of a Teddy bear than there is over those who commit these horrible non-Islamic acts in the name of Islam? Don't they slander Islam even more than these other things do? Why does one result in riots, arrests, fatwahs, and violence and the other is hardly a blip on the radar screen.

Now, before you say that I should check out some of the places where Muslims do condem such acts, I acknowledge that the Muslim community is not silent on the issue. But even as one who has a positive empathy for the Islamic faith, the difference in degree and manner of the Ummah's response to the two is glaringly alarming.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry for the typos. I did that in an incredible hurry.

Insaan. Just one more point I wish to make.

Although we talk of 'christian' England, nobody is born a Christian, even if his/her parents are. It is something one has to embrace personally at what is known as the 'age of discretion' - about 13 when able to make conscious decisions independantly of parental control. Of course, many or most dont which is why we have so many unbelievers but the basic Judeo/Christian ethos generally prevails throughout the country because everybody is used to it and it seems to work ok. I believe a Jew becomes one at birth if his mother is Jewish so no conscious conversion required but I am not an authority on this.

Please tell me about Islam. Is one born a muslim or is there a conversion requirement? I read of English 'converts' but is that because that person's parents are not moslems? This is the sort of thing I need to know in my quest. Thomas

 

[Woodrow]

P.S. Is the use of the word MOSLEM a rude expression in respect of Muslims?
What is the most polite way of address?

That comes close to being personal preference. A lot will depend on where you live and how you pronounce it in the local dialect. Here in the USA Muslim seems to be preferrd in the Southern States as the pronuciation is closer to the Arabic, but here in the Dakotas Moslem seems to be closer to the Arabic. Muslim is acceptable nearly world wide and may be the best choice to use if you do not know which is preffered. Mozlem spelled with a z is pretty well seen as offensive in almost all countries.

 

[Insaanah]

Thanks Uncle Woodrow for the offer of correcting the typos.
However I just re-read it and realised that there were even more than I thought :embarrass
They are all the ones that you can see blazingly staring out lol, so I'm happy for you to correct them should you wish to do so.

Hi Thomas,

I'm glad you came back and read the thread.

Muslim appears to be the worldwide spelling and is the one most frequently used by Muslims themselves, so that's the best spelling to use. It's also closer to the correct pronounciation.

We believe that every child is born sinless. The only sins he earns are the ones he/she actually does. No one is burdened with sins that they haven't committed at birth.

We also believe that every child is born a Muslim, in what is called the natural state of "fitrah". I'm no scholar but a rough way of explaining it is that if that child had no outside influences, they would come to believe that there is One creator who created him etc.

Then it is external, parental and environmental factors that turn the child into the religion he/she eventually becomes. There is no hereditary aspect to Islam. Your faith is based on your beliefs alone, not that of your parents. i.e. both your parents could be Muslim, but if you decided to follow a different path, then you are not a Muslim. Similarly, both your parents could be non-Muslim, but you may be a Muslim.

You are either brought up as a Muslim, or you revert. Note I haven't used the word convert, because as I said before, we believe that each child is born a Muslim. When you revert, any and all previous sins are washed away and you start clean with a new slate. To revert, you must first know, understand and accept the basic teachings of Islam, and then the actual reversion is by saying with your tongues, and believing deply in your heart, what is known as the Shahaada, the declaration of faith. The translation of the shortest form is, "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is His messenger. That's the bare minimum.

Also is sometimes added, And I bear witness that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the servant of God and His messenger , that heaven and hell are true, and that God will resurrect those in their graves.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.

Peace.

 

[Raphael]

You are either brought up as a Muslim, or you revert. Note I haven't used the word convert, because as I said before, we believe that each child is born a Muslim.

I disagree with this statement.

A child is not born Muslim, or Christian, or or anything for that matter. Just as a child is not born an accountant, a stockbroker, or lawyer.

The sweetness of emaan comes from a wilful submission to ones Lord. A child that dies young is granted jannah because they have not been tested, regardless of their religion, or religious practices.

In fact this is one of the major differences between Christianity and Islam. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that human beings are incapable of reconciling with God, and it is the belief that somebody else took the sins that grants them nearness to God. In Islam however, it is entirely ones own actions that determine their fate.

The word Muslim carries a beautiful meaning. An individual who submits to the Will of their Lord is rewarded in such a splendid fashion by Allah ta ala, because they chose to. This is the true meaning of the much misquoted verse in surah al Baqarah "there is no compulsion in religion".
This is clear if one reads the full verse...


Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Al-Baqarah (2:256)
Quran


*whoever rejects evil* - a concious act of free will
*and believes in Allah* - a concious act of free will

A child does not have the mental capacity to make this decision. I disagree with teaching a child memorisation of the Quran, and neglecting the most important part - its message! However this is common in many cultures.

A true revert, is one that had faith, lost it, and came back. That is to say, they wilfully believed in Allah, then went into disbelief, then came back to belief.

A child does not make a concious decision to believe, which is part of the shahadah, and thus a convert has not fallen into disbelief before coming into Islam.

This is not a criticism of your post, and you are definitely not the first person to say that. I know it sounds nice that every child is born a Muslim, but I think the truth is so much sweeter.



For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.


Al-Ahzab (33:35)
Quran

 

[Eliphaz]

Dear Thomas

I too am from the South Coast of U.K. My father is an 'indigenous' Englishman by which I assume you mean the 'white' descendants of the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxons, Germanaic, Nordish people and so forth who migrated there from Europe across the centuries.

My mother is one of the immigrants who came from Pakistan in the 70s.

I find that your perception of Islam is highly blinkered. Muslims are not a uniform homogeneous mass.

I also feel you have been hoodwinked by the rhetoric of parties like UKIP and BNP, who masquerade under the guise of defending British/Christian values when you know as well as I do that any 'Christian' values England holds as a country today is merely paying lip service.

Muslims couldn't care less about a tree being called a 'Christmas Tree'. I was involved in many school nativity plays, yes, as a Muslim child! I played one of the three wise men, and even a sheep (ironic maybe)! As to why the tree was renamed 'Tree of Light', I think you are asking the wrong people. I think you have that wonderful post-enlightenment 'secularism' movement to thank for that one, which has been politically correcting and championing 'freedom from religion' for the last few decades.

Regarding this mass influx of crazy burka-wearing placard-waving Muslims who are swimming across the channel just to get a chance to live in Mighty Blighty, you do realise that this is, 1. A scaremongering vote-grabbing bogeyman stereotype the likes of which was used to caricature communists during the Cold War, and, 2. A problem which reflects more on the ridiculous open door policy the government adopted as a means to boost the economy, that it does on the immigrants themselves? If you open the door, how can you blame the man who walks in?

Now look Thomas, the majority of true practising Muslims (I won't call them "moderate", because that is like saying "watered down" and is therefore oxymoronic), who follow the Qur'an as it is meant to be followed, do not, I repeat NOT want to bomb you. For a Muslim to take one innocent life is like killing all of humanity. Also, they do not want shariah law in the U.K. They don't even want you to rename your Christmas Tree! They just want what you want: to practise their beliefs, to coexist alongside their fellow human being and People of the Book (Christians and Jews - people held in high regard in the Qu'ran) and to have a good future for themselves and their family. That's IT. No fine print, no BS'ing.

I would also like to talk to you Grace Seeker.

Given that suicide bombers are, in your words, acting contrary to Islam, why is it that there is more outrage expressed over a Danish newspaper cartoon or the naming of a Teddy bear than there is over those who commit these horrible non-Islamic acts in the name of Islam? Don't they slander Islam even more than these other things do? Why does one result in riots, arrests, fatwahs, and violence and the other is hardly a blip on the radar screen.

Firstly, what 'radar screen' are you talking about? The wonderfully free and fair agenda-less media coverage? Muslims do not need to apologise for the acts of someone who flagrantly contradicts their core beliefs and values. Islam is not the only religion of whose some alleged 'followers' have innocent blood on their hands. Yes, people got bent out of shape over the issue of the Danish cartoon - I wrote an entire thread dedicated to condemning these placards - but why are you judging Islam based on a select group of Muslims? Why don't you do your research into Islam with a rational mind, find out whether the 1 percent of verses that deal with fighting are referring specific contexts of self-defence against those who attack Muslims, or if they are referring to clandestine acts of mass violence against entire populations. I think you will find it is the former. Thomas: I would kindly advise you do the same.

Peace, may we come to a common understanding.

 

[GuestFellow]

Grace Seeker
Given that suicide bombers are, in your words, acting contrary to Islam, why is it that there is more outrage expressed over a Danish newspaper cartoon or the naming of a Teddy bear than there is over those who commit these horrible non-Islamic acts in the name of Islam? Don't they slander Islam even more than these other things do? Why does one result in riots, arrests, fatwahs, and violence and the other is hardly a blip on the radar screen.

Why don't Western countries speak against the crimes that Israel committed against the Palestinians for the past sixty years!

Muslims do speak against terrorist attacks. There are many books and videos that show Muslims speaking against the terrorist attacks. The media does not even bother with Muslims who speak against these attacks...

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, you (and most, but not all, of the rest of the Islamic community here) have been consistent in your affirmation of the tolerance of Islam for other people's beliefs and its abhorence of these forms of violence. For that I thank you. But, maybe you can help me with something else I see with regard to Islam globally.

Given that suicide bombers are, in your words, acting contrary to Islam, why is it that there is more outrage expressed over a Danish newspaper cartoon or the naming of a Teddy bear than there is over those who commit these horrible non-Islamic acts in the name of Islam? Don't they slander Islam even more than these other things do? Why does one result in riots, arrests, fatwahs, and violence and the other is hardly a blip on the radar screen.

Now, before you say that I should check out some of the places where Muslims do condem such acts, I acknowledge that the Muslim community is not silent on the issue. But even as one who has a positive empathy for the Islamic faith, the difference in degree and manner of the Ummah's response to the two is glaringly alarming.

Peace Gene,

I think we can ascribe that to human nature in general. It is fairly easy to consider the act of a suicide bomber as being the act of a madman. It is difficult to think a sane person would do such a horrendous act that is only going to bring them a possible eternity in hell-fire. Plus, the madman is dead, we can not address him and let him know we detest his action. Add to that we know that at least for that one person he is not going to repeat the act. Who are we going to protest against? We really have no visible entity to protest against. People tend not to protest unless they have something visible to protest against. We can not protest those who are training and supplying suicide bombers we do not know who that would be and while we may suspect some individuals and organizations we have no means of contacting them. people do not get into heated protest unless the entity being protested against is to some level accessible.

Now using the cartoons as an example. The cartoonist is known, the entities that published the cartoons are known, the country whose laws permitted them is known. There is a visible and accessible entity to protest against. Add to that there is visible reaction to the protests. A protester wants/needs a reaction if a protest is going to have momentum, The greater the perceived reaction is, the larger and longer lasting the protest will become.

Then to add to that most of us see a suicide bomber as basically sinning against humankind while a person insulting Allah(swt) and/or the Prophets(PBUT) is sinning against God(swt). Although if your loved ones are killed by a suicide bomber you might view that differently. Which is what may be what is now happening in Pakistan. I view the sending of 30,000 Pakistani Army troops to destroy the Taliban as being the largest organized protest against suicide bombers, to date.

Just my views, If i am wrong correct me Astagfirullah

 

[Thomas]

I disagree with this statement.

A child is not born Muslim, or Christian, or or anything for that matter. Just as a child is not born an accountant, a stockbroker, or lawyer.

The sweetness of emaan comes from a wilful submission to ones Lord. A child that dies young is granted jannah because they have not been tested, regardless of their religion, or religious practices.

In fact this is one of the major differences between Christianity and Islam. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that human beings are incapable of reconciling with God, and it is the belief that somebody else took the sins that grants them nearness to God. In Islam however, it is entirely ones own actions that determine their fate.

The word Muslim carries a beautiful meaning. An individual who submits to the Will of their Lord is rewarded in such a splendid fashion by Allah ta ala, because they chose to. This is the true meaning of the much misquoted verse in surah al Baqarah "there is no compulsion in religion".
This is clear if one reads the full verse...


Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Al-Baqarah (2:256)
Quran


*whoever rejects evil* - a concious act of free will
*and believes in Allah* - a concious act of free will

A child does not have the mental capacity to make this decision. I disagree with teaching a child memorisation of the Quran, and neglecting the most important part - its message! However this is common in many cultures.

A true revert, is one that had faith, lost it, and came back. That is to say, they wilfully believed in Allah, then went into disbelief, then came back to belief.

A child does not make a concious decision to believe, which is part of the shahadah, and thus a convert has not fallen into disbelief before coming into Islam.

This is not a criticism of your post, and you are definitely not the first person to say that. I know it sounds nice that every child is born a Muslim, but I think the truth is so much sweeter.



For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.


Al-Ahzab (33:35)
Quran

Hi Raphael and Insaan
I think I am getting there.
Firstly, for christianity.
From birth to the age of discretion (usually reckoned to be about 13 but varies according to the intellect of the person) it is believed that a person is acceptable to God unconditionally. From then on, once that person has 'heard the claims of the christian gospel' i.e. has understood it, he is expected to be accountable for his acceptance or rejection of it. It can be later, even very much later in life, even on ones deathbed, so never too late to be 'saved' but one does run the risk of being eternally 'lost' should one die after hearing and understanding the claims and not being able to put things right by asking for salvation. It is not for others to judge how God will deal with people in such circumstances. On the other hand, a person understanding the claims and outrightly rejecting same would, naturally, not be 'saved', perhaps because they dont want to be saved. There are many sceptics and agnostics who dont know what to believe so could become christians at any time before death. Although there are some who willfully reject the idea of christian salvation, most people sort of go along with it, like thinking of doing something about it 'in due course'. This may all sound a bit wooly to you but is probably why English people are fond of christmas, easter etc and dont want it disturbed by what they see as a possible muslim immigration threat. You would hear them describe it as "our (or the English) way of life". A kind of comfort blanket they can turn to in a crisis, bereavement etc which is why it always has to be there for them. In the hope that God will eventually say "ok then, you can come in" .

I am not saying all this simply to proselytise but merely to try and explain one of the major fears of any change or immigrant concessions seen as the thin edge of the wedge. I suppose the ideal situation is that christians continue to go off to church as often or as infrequently as they wish and muslims go off to the mosque likewise and sometimes meet each other socially. As you have already said, the possible conflict arises because nuisance local councillors and others who are unbelievers come up with unwanted concessions which actually furthers their own agenda by gradually marginalising christianity. And because of its inbuilt 'impediments' such as 'turn the other cheek, do good to those who insult you' etc the christian church has backed off more and more and only every now and again do we hear a bishop or other cleric raise a voice in protest. The irony of all this is that whilst the 'standard' (Church of England) version of christianity appears to be receeding, the non-church going population worry when they see mosques being built.... A fear of the comfort blanket being gradually taken away.....

In 1936, American President Roosevelt told his people that "the only fear we have is fear itself" and this may well be our own problem. Immigrants themselves are not the major problem (although it has become a political concern of the population) but the fears of the changes they will bring about by sheer numbers and required concessions. And when we read about even one-off events like returning soldiers being abused on their march-pasts, burka covered student demanding admission without uncovering her face, more and more streets/areas being taken over in large cities (no problem where I live on south coast) with the PERCEIVED idea that immigrants are getting every government cash and other benefit under the sun, the English are getting more and more resentful. When I previously emphasised the word "PERCEIVED" on earlier posts it seemed to be lost on those reading my comments. When I used the word "WE" to describe many millions of English born residents, readers seemed to think I was an isolated crank peddling my OWN racial ideas. So there IS a definite lack of communication and understanding of the Engliash vernacular... I have no desire to create disharmony but in view of the political forthcoming problems about immigration I assumed it better to speak plainly about my own country, rather than just platitudes. I have NO interest in changing or disturbing current arrangements or insulting Asian people's belief, customs and way of life in the rest of the world even though I am aware that some other European countries such as France, Holland and Denmark are showing signs of similar concern. I am only interested in my own home turf at the moment.

I hope this sounds reassuring and wont result in muslims telling me I am race discriminating....

 

[Grace Seeker]

I would also like to talk to you Grace Seeker.



Firstly, what 'radar screen' are you talking about? The wonderfully free and fair agenda-less media coverage? Muslims do not need to apologise for the acts of someone who flagrantly contradicts their core beliefs and values. Islam is not the only religion of whose some alleged 'followers' have innocent blood on their hands. Yes, people got bent out of shape over the issue of the Danish cartoon - I wrote an entire thread dedicated to condemning these placards - but why are you judging Islam based on a select group of Muslims? Why don't you do your research into Islam with a rational mind, find out whether the 1 percent of verses that deal with fighting are referring specific contexts of self-defence against those who attack Muslims, or if they are referring to clandestine acts of mass violence against entire populations. I think you will find it is the former. Thomas: I would kindly advise you do the same.

Peace, may we come to a common understanding.

First: The only "radar screen" available to me is that of the mass media outlets found in the USA, so that is the one I am referring to. That does includes places like your blog, but it didn't show up in the search I did. Rather, the protests did. Hence my use of the term "blip", because while there are some reports of the type of response which you might give -- note I recognized that they are out there -- they are also in fact largely overshadowed by the noise from other quarters. Now, some of this is due to a media that operates under the guise that news is that which assualts the sinces. So, quite responses to violence are often not reported while that which bleeds leads. I get this. I also get that all that it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to remain silent in the face of it. When an outsider such as myself speaks to this, it almost always meets with the response you have given, that Islam does not condone such violence. That's great! I understand. I already knew that. What I don't get is why I mainly hear that statement made in response to my and other non-Muslims' questions about it? Why are the prophetic voices speaking against violence done in the name of Islam so few and scattered as to appear almost silent on the matter?

Second, And I am not asking for Muslims to apologize for someone who flagrantly contradicts their core beliefs and values. You yourself have nothing to apologize for. I don't for a second think that Islam at its core is anything other than a religion of peace. What I do think is that some people who have other agendas have attempted to hijack it and have abused it. I suggest that in doing so they have insulted the Prophet much more than a cartoon, much more than a teddy bear, much more than any non-Muslim can do. For they are defaming the religion of Islam from within, and despoiling the faith's good name and message so that others get a perverted and distorted view of what it means to be a follower of Islam and a slave of Allah. I don't get how it is then that there would not be even more consternation of these actions? If a cartoon can incite people to protest (usually peacably) in the streets -- I even understand why it might, but why can't an act of terroism get those same people to march for peace? If a teddy bear can get people thrown in jail, why can't a suicide bomber get those who recruit people for those purposes to be declared outlaws? Why don't these violent non-Islamic acts committed in the name of Islam, inflame the same protests that other non-violent acts do that are seen as an insult to Islam? For surely violence commited in the name of Islam which Islam is supposedly a religion of peace is more insulting than any of these other acts could ever be.

Third, I am not judging Islam based on a select group of Muslims. I am asking where is the response of the majority? If the dominant position of the Qur'an, if the overwhelming theme of Islam, if the majority view of Muslims all over the world is that violence is NOT the way of Islam -- and I accept all that as a given -- then where is the voiced outrage, the prophet condemnation, the fatwas against terrorism, protesting in the streets by that majority. How and why can the majority let this non-Islamic behaving 1% be allowed to make itself the face of Islam to the non-Muslim world?

Fourth, in saying "Why don't you do your research into Islam with a rational mind..." it comes across as if you are accusing me of not doing research into Islam with a rational mind. And if this is indeed what you are saying, then I take that as an insult. Having now been insulted, what would be an appropriate response on my part? I am going to give you a chance to amend your words. I would ask you to note that while I am not a Muslim, I have been on this forum for nearly 3 years. I came here originally specifically because I had friends who were asking the same questions then that I have put forth today. They wanted to know where the voice of Islam was in condeming the violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam. I knew that the media was not covering it well because I personally have a number of relationships with Muslims and knew it the violence that I was seeing on TV did not reflect that Islamic community that I knew personally. I had with my own ears heard the Iman at the local mosque speak against it. But I had not found anything in the media directed to a wider audience. I knew it had to be out there, but under-reported. And so I did come here on that rational search that you speak of. I have remained a part of this forum community since that time enjoying a whole host of conversations on a variety of issues. And those who have taken the time to know me from more than just one post are, I believe, fully aware that I harber no ill will against Islam as a faith and certainly none against Muslims themselves. But I have asked and will continue to ask questions because I do believe that one's life, one's values, and the praxis of one's faith needs to examined. I do this with myself, and because there are Muslims who are personally dear to me, I dare also to do this with Islam as I cannot stand to see it to be allowed to be so easily besmirched as it is by those who are allowed to hijack it into something it is not without ever being challenged by those who are true followers of Islam.

You want rational research. How about some logic, in particular a couple of syllogism:

If their faith is defamed, then Muslims will protest.
Muhammad (pbuh) is pictured in a cartoon.
Muslims protest.
Therefore, Muslims view the cartoon as defaming their faith.


If their faith is defamed, then Muslims will protest.
A person commits an act of violence in the name of Islam.
Muslims do NOT protest.
Therefore, what shall one conclude?


To me it says that Muslims do NOT view acts of violence done in the Islam to be defaming of their faith, and I just have a hard time accepting that as true. Yet, if I base my understanding solely upon observation of behavior and reason and not my own emotional response of love for the Muslims I know personally, that is the most rational conclusion I am able to reach. And so I post here, because rather than accept that as a true indictment of Islam, I would prefer to challenge Muslims to call these individuals who are in fact defaming and slandering the good name of Islam what they are hooligans, terrorists, and acting contrary to the principles of Islam. Yes, I know you and others have done so on your blogs. But I still want to know why, if people will march in the streets in the protest of one, why won't they march in the streets in the protest of the other? Why the two different responses to the same crime against Islam?

----------------

And, Woodrow, thank-you for your post above which was made while I was composing this response to Omar. I know that one cannot protest against the dead suicide bomber. And I sort of get your point that one cannot even protest against the unknown recruiter. But I find that the recruiter is not so unknown, at least TV reporters appear to have no trouble finding people to interview who are involved these activities. But beyond that, why not protest the idea, just as once upon a time people protested not just the individual acts of racism by the whole culture of racism that gripped our own country. It wasn't solved overnight, but when people started to make it part of the fabric of our society that racism would no longer be said to be wrong but a blind eye turned to those who perpetuated it, then and only then progress finally began to be made. And while there may be important conversations taking place in a few places, from what I can tell as an outsider sometimes invited it, the overall response of the Ummah to violence done in the name of Islam, remains as condoning as that of 1950s white America to violence done in the name of racial superiority. I hope the Ummah doesn't allow that infection to fester within it as long as America did in confronting its shameful practices.

 

[Eliphaz]

Fourth, in saying "Why don't you do your research into Islam with a rational mind..." it comes across as if you are accusing me of not doing research into Islam with a rational mind. And if this is indeed what you are saying, then I take that as an insult. Having now been insulted, what would be an appropriate response on my part? I am going to give you a chance to amend your words.

I apologise. Those words were ill-chosen. "Rational mind" should have read "rational approach" and were not meant to insult you in any way. I think I misread your post:

Given that suicide bombers are, in your words, acting contrary to Islam

to suggest that this (suicide bombers) was an issue that you were yourself not clear on, in terms of the Islamic standpoint. Please forgive me for my own ignorance.

As I am retiring for the night I will just say that I feel Woodrow's post is better than any answer I can give in addressing the remainder of your questions.

 

[Italianguy]

Hi. I came across this site by chance and would really like to understand people I have never met face to face.

I am English born and Christian which faith, by definition, is acquiescent, submissive (turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies etc) but we now seem up against a faith (Islam) that seems to have few if any of these 'disadvantages' to rein in what seems to be a very militant faith. I mean (although it didnt happen in England) tat silly business of Allah being insulted by a teddy bear being named Mohammed when I thought it was one of the commonst names for a boy - like the English JOHN. The other sad things that really irritates and alienates we Brits is Burka covered women holding placards abusing British soldiers as they march past (Luton?). This one act has brought out Brit street mobs to make things much worse for immigrants. Then, yesterday, I read about a 20 years old women ( presume she is female..) going to register for a college cout dressed from head to foot in a burka and refusing to even show her face for identification which seems so incredibly stupid that I can only assume sh was put up to this by others who want to push, push, push the boundaries acceptable to the average Brit. I expect she will appeal against being refused registration - and the appeal will be allowed "in case it offends people of other faiths". In my town we now have a "Tree of Light" instead of an annual Christmas tree "in case th latter offends those of other faiths" . Have you considered how much abuse Christianity takes, every minute of every day through blasphemies and cynicism? And God, in his infinite wisdom allows that whereas muslims seem to feel the need to take revenge - as if Allah is unable to handle it and deal with it.... Dop Muslims ever actually pray for their enemies, do good to those that hurt you and despise you etc?

To summerise, I wish muslim immigrants would just try and assimilate theselves into English life without constanty seeking concessions. OR, are we Brits making misakes by merely thinking that you want Tree of Light etc concessions when you don't want to patronised?

My fellow christian, calm down, why don't you find a local msoque or just talk to someone here. As a Christian i can attest that we both have extremests in our faiths. Please don't represent Christians in a bad way. Everyone here is extremley accepting and helpfull! God bless.

 

[Thomas]

Dear Thomas

I too am from the South Coast of U.K. My father is an 'indigenous' Englishman by which I assume you mean the 'white' descendants of the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxons, Germanaic, Nordish people and so forth who migrated there from Europe across the centuries.

My mother is one of the immigrants who came from Pakistan in the 70s.

I find that your perception of Islam is highly blinkered. Muslims are not a uniform homogeneous mass.

I also feel you have been hoodwinked by the rhetoric of parties like UKIP and BNP, who masquerade under the guise of defending British/Christian values when you know as well as I do that any 'Christian' values England holds as a country today is merely paying lip service.

Muslims couldn't care less about a tree being called a 'Christmas Tree'. I was involved in many school nativity plays, yes, as a Muslim child! I played one of the three wise men, and even a sheep (ironic maybe)! As to why the tree was renamed 'Tree of Light', I think you are asking the wrong people. I think you have that wonderful post-enlightenment 'secularism' movement to thank for that one, which has been politically correcting and championing 'freedom from religion' for the last few decades.

Regarding this mass influx of crazy burka-wearing placard-waving Muslims who are swimming across the channel just to get a chance to live in Mighty Blighty, you do realise that this is, 1. A scaremongering vote-grabbing bogeyman stereotype the likes of which was used to caricature communists during the Cold War, and, 2. A problem which reflects more on the ridiculous open door policy the government adopted as a means to boost the economy, that it does on the immigrants themselves? If you open the door, how can you blame the man who walks in?

Now look Thomas, the majority of true practising Muslims (I won't call them "moderate", because that is like saying "watered down" and is therefore oxymoronic), who follow the Qur'an as it is meant to be followed, do not, I repeat NOT want to bomb you. For a Muslim to take one innocent life is like killing all of humanity. Also, they do not want shariah law in the U.K. They don't even want you to rename your Christmas Tree! They just want what you want: to practise their beliefs, to coexist alongside their fellow human being and People of the Book (Christians and Jews - people held in high regard in the Qu'ran) and to have a good future for themselves and their family. That's IT. No fine print, no BS'ing.

I would also like to talk to you Grace Seeker.



Firstly, what 'radar screen' are you talking about? The wonderfully free and fair agenda-less media coverage? Muslims do not need to apologise for the acts of someone who flagrantly contradicts their core beliefs and values. Islam is not the only religion of whose some alleged 'followers' have innocent blood on their hands. Yes, people got bent out of shape over the issue of the Danish cartoon - I wrote an entire thread dedicated to condemning these placards - but why are you judging Islam based on a select group of Muslims? Why don't you do your research into Islam with a rational mind, find out whether the 1 percent of verses that deal with fighting are referring specific contexts of self-defence against those who attack Muslims, or if they are referring to clandestine acts of mass violence against entire populations. I think you will find it is the former. Thomas: I would kindly advise you do the same.

Peace, may we come to a common understanding.

Hi Omar and thanks for your interesting post.
Yes, I do understand that we English, collectively, have a probably warped idea of the PERCEIVED problems of ever more immigration. I didnt know I had used the word 'indigenous' as I am not keen on it as description of those in uk.
Interesting to read that your father was English born and your mother was an immigrant. Was your father a muslim from birth?

I am old enough to remember many Asian people coming here years ago. Many came from Africa after being kicked out of Uganda by that mad man. I believe they had to leave any wealth behind and start here from scratch and re-opened corner shops that had closed after the arrival of supermarkets, and made the shops work by apparantly using the whole family whereas English born sons and daughters had stopped following in fathers footsteps and went off and did their own thing. I wonder how many new businesses nowadays have names like "Brown and Son" . All the Asian small shopkeepers seemed to be a Mr Patel.

I expect you will understand why the millions of English born people are currently worried about the seemingly uncontrolled immigration arrangements. Many 'failed' asylum seekers who are not deported and vanish. All those people who periodically gather at Calais and refuse to ask for asylum in any of the many 'safe' countries they pass through. Why do they do these desperate things that we see on TV. I have tried to explain why we are worried but I would say that the majority of responders seem to misunderstand and defensively accuse me of racism when all I have tried to do is tell the people on the site what and why the English have these concerns and fears. After all, if any of them ever decide to come here they will have to put up with more than a few questions being asked of them. Their defense of Islam seems strange compared with the 24/7 abuse that christianity has to put up with. It looks like moderator Woodrow finally summed it up with his comments.

Wherabouts on the south coast are you? I am in Eastbourne.

Regards Thomas

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why don't Western countries speak against the crimes that Israel committed against the Palestinians for the past sixty years!

Not an apt comparison, as the Israelis are not doing what they do in the name of other western countries, western philosophy, or western religion. The point that was very nicely being made by Grace Seeker is that these terrorists do what they do in the name of Ilsam - which is surely a slap in the face to the religion if its a religion of peace. And surely it does more damage to muslims than any western person could - it poisons people against Islam (makes us think rightly or wrongly that Islam is a religion of violence and terror and subdues any empathy we may otherwise have for our muslim brothers and sisters).

There is nothing more effective in rendering people cold and nasty towards somebody than to demonize them and make them look evil, and terrorism demonizes Islam.

Woodrow gave the best reply to this oft made and rarely answered criticism of muslims that I have ever heard or read. Kudos to you Woodrow. You had me nodding and smiling all through your post and explained away something I've long be critical of muslims for. Except at the end when you differentiated crime towards man from crime towards God and I got the idea that maybe the latter is a greater concern to a muslim (and if so I find that in itself rather alarming).

 

[Woodrow]

And, Woodrow, thank-you for your post above which was made while I was composing this response to Omar. I know that one cannot protest against the dead suicide bomber. And I sort of get your point that one cannot even protest against the unknown recruiter. But I find that the recruiter is not so unknown, at least TV reporters appear to have no trouble finding people to interview who are involved these activities. But beyond that, why not protest the idea, just as once upon a time people protested not just the individual acts of racism by the whole culture of racism that gripped our own country. It wasn't solved overnight, but when people started to make it part of the fabric of our society that racism would no longer be said to be wrong but a blind eye turned to those who perpetuated it, then and only then progress finally began to be made. And while there may be important conversations taking place in a few places, from what I can tell as an outsider sometimes invited it, the overall response of the Ummah to violence done in the name of Islam, remains as condoning as that of 1950s white America to violence done in the name of racial superiority. I hope the Ummah doesn't allow that infection to fester within it as long as America did in confronting its shameful practices.

Peace Gene,

Very good points and perhaps some are possible to do.Some steps that can be taken is more educational programs reaching young people world wide.

A current stumbling block I see is the destitute living condition many of the suicide bombers have come from. The suicide bomber is often seen as wrong but understandingly wrong as desperate people living in desperate conditions will do irrational acts.

So possibly the keys to eliminating suicide bombers is to improve the living conditions where they come from and education. Protests might attract more attention, but I do not see they would bring lasting change.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but it gave me thought as to what can be done.

I will give some deeper thought over what you said in your post and try to address it after a good nights sleep. I should have plenty of PC time tomorrow as we are expecting a minimum of a foot of snow tonight so looks like I'll be spending the day indoors tomorrow.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Woodrow, I am sure you are quite right that the majority of these acts are acts of desperation. Does desperation make it understandable? Not to me. And even if it does to others, how does it ever make it condonable? I can understand (even if I don't agree with) people acting this way to achieve political ends -- the major reason that I believe they are conducted -- after all political motives are often secular and make no illusion to being done in any diety's name. But to have them couched as being a religious act is not condonable, but condemnable. And when done by supposed followers Islam in the name of Allah..., well I remain surprised that the Ummah doesn't rise with one voice, as it does when Islam is otherwise defamed and slandered, and express its justified condemnation of the perversion of the true way of Islam.


(As a side note: You who are in the USA will remember how Christians did in fact go public with their protests against the radical pro-lifers who committed murder and bombings at abortion clinics.)

 

[Eliphaz]

Interesting to read that your father was English born and your mother was an immigrant. Was your father a muslim from birth?

My father was born into a non-practising Christian family and converted to Islam several years before meeting my mother.

I expect you will understand why the millions of English born people are currently worried about the seemingly uncontrolled immigration arrangements. Many 'failed' asylum seekers who are not deported and vanish.

Yes. I think we are all worried about out of control population growth because of the size of the U.K., estimated as only being suitable for up to a population of 70m people. Which makes one wonder how the birth rate will be controlled in a few years... :hmm:

We should address the cause (lousy policy) instead of being distracted by the symptoms ("scary" immigrants). As I say, if we blame the man who walks through the door, instead of the man who leaves the door open, then yes we are going to offend people who percieve you as overgeneralising the behaviour of immigrants as benefits-claiming freeloaders. Many people here are descended from immigrants who have contributed a great deal to British society.

After all, if any of them ever decide to come here they will have to put up with more than a few questions being asked of them. Their defense of Islam seems strange compared with the 24/7 abuse that christianity has to put up with. It looks like moderator Woodrow finally summed it up with his comments.

People don't know what England is like. They are made to believe a "fairytale" version, and are basically just trying to get a better future for themselves but mainly for their children, as would anyone from a destitute condition. Nothing more or less.

Wherabouts on the south coast are you? I am in Eastbourne.

Southampton.

And when done by supposed followers Islam in the name of Allah..., well I remain surprised that the Ummah doesn't rise with one voice, as it does when Islam is otherwise defamed and slandered, and express its justified condemnation of the perversion of the true way of Islam.

Trust me, all Muslims feel this way, probably more sadness than surprise, about the Ummah not having "One Voice". It is the most crucial issue of this day and age for Muslims all around the world. The problem is, Muslims have become obsessed with petty differences and the wide geographic distribution of Muslims has made communication (even if these differences were overcome) problematic at best.

However, I would like to point out, that there are many separate Muslim organisations who have (whether we hear them or not) spoken out, rallied and protested, throughout the past decade, to condemn the increased acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam.

There is a fairly long list of some of them here: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/ta...ism_part_ii_statements_by_organizatio/0012210