Perspective on Muslim Protestors

The shrill and widespread condemnation of the apparent over-reaction of the Muslim radicals who attacked the UN building in Afghanistan and murdered some of the workers is at least understandable. After all as one visitor to my site put it “one guy burns a book – the others kill people….these are not equivalent acts.Yet there is a sociological component to the situation which appears largely overlooked. There are some interesting new discoveries about why certain styles of religion and consequent behaviours are in vogue in certain areas and at particular times eg New Scientist 26 March 2011 Pp38-39 Thou Shalt Believe or Not and (Ibid ) Chosing My Religion (P48)
For example: The most comforting ideas of heavenly rewards flourish in the affluent West with little negative taught about such matters as hell in the predominant religion. But when there is perceived threat in the community you get polarisation into belief and non belief. One of the researchers noted for example that when George W Bush was reelected there was an immediate surge both in evangelical Christianity and atheism.
When something happens with the potential to disturb the religious equilibrium it then follows the setting in which it happens influences the likely result.
So for example in the pleasant little backwater of New Zealand there has been little notice taken by the Muslim sector in the community to the Kur’an burning antics of the mad Florida zealot Pastor Jones – whereas in the highly charged violent setting of Afghanistan (aggravated I might suggest by both Western and Eastern arms dealers and those struggling to establish control of strategic territory) the religious response has been far more wild eyed. Some commentators have also noted that the media beat up of the Qur’an burning and a highly publicised speech from President Kazai strongly condemning the action helped raise the tension still further. It shouldn’t take a great brain to realise that when a community feels it is under threat with daily killings and foreign troops in the streets, doing something aggravating and provocative like burning the one sacred book held dear to the very same folk who are fighting for what they believe to be their principles (and even their lives) is not likely to produce the sort of reaction we might expect for example in the sleepy bucolic Mid West of the US.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in In the news and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Perspective on Muslim Protestors

  1. katargeo says:

    When someone burns a Koran, Moslems react all over the world attacking innocent people, burning churches, murder, rape etc., and that is somehow justified or “sociologically” understood. Wow! Christians have their symbols denigrated all over the world even sometimes by ridiculous Government supported art exhibits where crucifixes are put in a jar of urine or pictures of the Virgin Mary are polluted by dung. All this time Christians are told by the Gospels to “turn the other cheek.” and pray for and bless those that hate you and persecute you. Not once in the past decade have we heard of a Christian or Buddhist or Jew or Shintoist going into a mall and blowing himself/herself up murdering and slaughtering innocent men, women and children. Not once have we seen a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Shintoist etc hijacking a plane or kidnapping or beheading other innocent people. Not once do we see any of these people running around in shooting sprees yelling, “Allah Akbar” or “Jesus is Great” or Buddha is great or Jehovah is great! Why is it only one religion gets this free pass by liberals claiming that we can “psychologically” or “sociologically” understand them and their acts? Maybe it is a difference in their founders. Jesus taught his followers to forgive and love their enemies:
    Matt 5:43-45 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

    Jesus not only taught this to his followers, but he also practiced it himself. Even though he was innocent, he was arrest and crucified. When he was being nailed to the cross he prayed, “Father forgive them they know not what they do.” Contrast that to the hate gospel of Mohammed who commanded his followers to kill all unbelievers.
    by
    sura 9:5: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…..” and

    sura 5:33: “For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is . . . execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile from the land”.

    Mohammed not only taught a gospel of hate, but he practice it. He participated in 78 jihads during his lifetime killing innocent men, women and children who would not convert to Islam.

    from Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadis #0033, and Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, Book 8, Hadis #387, comes a telling insight on the true meaning and scope of Jihad:

    Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight against people until they say that “there is no god but Allah”, that “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”, they pray, and pay religious taxes. If they do that, their lives and property are safe.”

    The Qur’an says Jihad receives the highest reward and is the surest way to paradise if the “fighter” dies: “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead … they live … in the presence of their Lord” (Qur’an 3:169). “… To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah … soon shall we {God} give him a reward” (Qur’an 4:74).

    According to Muslim doctrine, to deny Allah and Muhammad’s exclusive right to be believed in and adored is a terrible crime. Having established the ‘best religion’ that abrogates all others, the Prophet undeniably prescribed that the correct course of action against non-believers is to fight them. Since the biggest crime any person or nation can commit is denial of Islam, it is quite clear the true solution to the problem has been dictated to be perpetual war (Jihad) against such renegades. Based upon Islamic scholars’ writings, it appears undeniable that violent Jihad is permitted in Islam for both offensive and defensive purposes. It was commanded by, and praised by Muhammad as being one of the greatest forms of true Islamic spirituality. Further, some of the final direction from Muhammad was that that Jihad is to continue until all people are subjected to Islamic rule. Offensive aggression toward non-Muslims is clearly and unashamedly allowed, but prior to attacking, the Muslims are to offer them a choice:
    1- Become Muslim;
    2- do not become Muslim but pay the extortion (Jizya) tax;
    3- defend yourself unto death.
    Jihad embodies both an ideology and a jurisdiction, formally conceived by Muslim legal experts and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses and long chapters in the Traditions (the hadith). The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear.

    Both Less and Greater Jihad are commanded to all followers of Islam. The one refers to inner struggles against sin, and the other refers to the battle to spread Islam by the sword. This is what Mohammed did until his death in 632 AD. This is what his 4 great disciples: Ali, Uthman, Umar, and Abu Bakr did after his death. They practiced what they saw their teacher do.

    ABU BAKR’S REIGN
    A.H. 11 (622, 623 AD) Abu Bakr makes war upon the people of Yamana who wish to leave Islam.
    A.H. 12 Muslim armies attack the Christians in Palestine.
    UMAR’S REIGN
    A.H. 13 Conquest of Damascus, Syria.
    A.H. 14 & 15 Syria and Palestine conquered.
    A.H. 15 – 21 Iraq, Southern Persia, and Egypt conquered.
    UTHMAN’S REIGN
    A.H. 24 Conquest in Northern Persia and Armenia.
    A.H. 28 Attack on Cyprus.
    ALI’S REIGN
    During Ali’s reign there were two civil wars. The first Islamic civil war occurred between Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, and Aisha, Abu Bakr’s daughter (a child Muhammad consummated a marriage with when she was 9 years old). 13,000 Muslims died killing each other as Ali defeated Aisha. Not long thereafter Ali fought Muwawiyya, Abu Sufyan’s son. Muwawiyya was appointed governor of Damascus / Syria, and moved against Ali to take power. In the end, Ali won out as the two sides negotiated a peace of some sorts. Not long afterwards, Ali was murdered by Muslims, as was Uthman prior to him, and also Umar who was killed by a slave. In any case, after the ‘rightly guided Caliphs had all met untimely violent deaths through murder and assassination, Muwawiyya then assumed power as Caliph.

    From the Beginning Islam has been a religion of bloodshed and hate. Mohammed and his 4 disciples practiced and taught it well.

    Contrast that with Jesus and his 12 disciples. Jesus prayed and love those who betrayed and crucified him. When Peter tried to protect Jesus with the sword, Jesus rebuke Peter and healed the man’s ear that Peter had attacked. (John 18:10-11)

    Jesus taught love and forgiveness toward his enemies. Mohammed taught and practice hatred and warfare.

    Maybe this is why since 9/11 there have been over 16000+ acts of terror (suicide bombings, murders, kidnappings, etc) committed in the name of Allah and only a small handful committed by other religions.

  2. peddiebill says:

    It would be helpful for my site if you were to make your posts a little briefer – can I suggest one main point per post.
    However in answer. First your post contains serious errors. It is simply not true that as a result of the Koran burning there was world wide Muslim violence. In New Zealand absolutely no violence as a consequence. The same for most other countries. Surely the violence was only happening in the places like Afghanistan and Pakistan where feelings were already running high.
    Of course there are loony tune Christians every bit as wild eyed and dangerous as Muslims. Quite apart from fundamentalist Christian terrorist organisations eg those in India who kill if their forced conversions of Hindus dont work out, even in the US where I have to say I found it extremely difficult to find news that was anywhere near balanced, I would have thought you might have at least heard of Rwanda where a few years ago one huge tribe (all Christians) were chopping up another huge tribe (all Christians) and were burning one another alive in their respective Churches. Next look up the Balkans some time (Croatia, Sarajevo etc). (Is the problem the US education system perhaps?)The Christian attacks on Muslims were so severe that they called it civil war and the UN had to intervene to sort it out. The killers may not have chanted exactly the same phrases you refer to – but they were acts of genocide. I stress I dont hold you responsible for what I see as slanted opinion. Your narrow view of history is totally understandable…each time I visit the US I am overwhelmed with the same lopsided view in the media, but there is another way of seeking information.
    If you start with international death rates by violence you start to notice other places other than those directly involving the US. For example when – horror of horrors – the Twin Towers crashed down with close to 3000 deaths (of US CIVILIANS!) I was reading about 25,000 civilians dying unlamented in the Congo in a four month period as a result of terrorism (much of it Christian ) and certainly unheard of in the US. Another way of looking at it is to simply take the bald statistics. Which civilians die and at whose hands. Dont worry for the moment what method is used. Dont get me started on what the New Zealand Special forces army officers (our SAS) tell me they saw of US troop behaviour with Afghan civilians, or what happened in Iraq as witnessed by a security worker who is a friend. Yes – I know murdering in cold blood is not called terrorism if you are wearing a uniform – and nor is handing prisoners over to be tortured. (Ask pfc Manning!)
    Why would the US need to use suicide bombers which only kill a few at a time – when they can drop white phosphorus from the air and wipe out whole areas. As someone trained originally in Chemistry who once had a tiny spot of white phosphorus land on the palm of my hand I can tell you it was incredibly painful. Why toss the baby on the fire – when you can toss fire on the baby from such a distance that you can treat it as a computer war game and not have the inconvenience of listening to the cries or watch the distraught family members plotting revenge. Civilian score wise – all those Christian soldiers are miles ahead of the highly inefficient Islamic terrorists. More than 100,000 civilians dead as a result of the US intervention in Iraq trumps 3000 in the Twin Towers. What is more each of those 100,000 had relatives. It probably hasnt occured to you but if it was your family and someone has just killed your family members for no reason you can understand, you may just be so angry you want to retaliate.
    In the US because the US does not have a war at present there is hardly any terrorism apart from the Twin Towers, and a few isolated acts like the Oklahoma bombing (done in that case by someone claiming a weird form of Christianity as his inspiration) – and of course the odd killing of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics – again by Christian fundamentalists. But the fact that many of the instigators of the 12000 gun deaths in the US each year claim Christianity as their faith should not go without notice. Look up the UN figures and note which countries have the highest murder rates – and which countries are Christian or Muslim. You may be surprised. (Start with the crime rate in Saudi Arabia and compared it with Christian countires like Columbia (Catholic) and the US. The fact that they dont shout religious phrases as they take life in my book does not make it acceptable behaviour.

  3. katargeo says:

    Calling Columbia and the USA Christian nations and trying to compare that to individual acts of terror committed by Orthodox Moslems in the name of Islam is a pretty biased comparison. It reminds me of those who try to compare Obama to Hitler in his forcing of socialized medicine on Americans. While I might not want Obama Care it is very unfair to compare him to Hitler. Calling America a Christian nation or Columbia is a clearly biased comparison in the same way. According to leading researcher George Barna, only 4% of Americans have a Christian worldview. America has never been a Caliphate like the oppression carried on under Islam in many countries. Whether people are Christian or not depends on whether they follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. I will not try to defend Christendom in the same way Jesus did not defend Judaism. Jesus rebuked some of the Jews openly for abandoning the Word of God and following their own traditions. He rebuked the liberals (Saducees) and the Hyper fundamentalists (Pharisees) for no longer following the Word of God and instead following their own man-made traditions. Mark 7:6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

    “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
    7 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’[a]

    8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

    Jesus referred to the liberals and hyper fundamentalists, “You belong to your father, the devil.” John 8:44

    In what warped and twisted way would you possibly compare Timothy McVeigh to a Christian? Was he following the life, example and teachings of Jesus Christ? I know there are some Liberals who would call themselves CHRISTIANS because they attend Easter and Christmas services, and there are some hyper fundamentalist hate groups like the extreme Westboro Baptists. The vast majority of committed Christians who follow the Word of God consider both of these extremes outside of Christianity. They are openly condemned by most true Christians.

    The bigger question is about people like Osama bin Laden. Is he an orthodox committed Moslem that followed the teachings of the Koran. Did he follow the life example and teachings of Mohammed and his 4 main disciples: Umar, Ali, Uthman an Abu Bakr? Is Osama’s interpretation of the Koran consistent with the majority or orthodox Moslem scholars throughout history?

    The Good News is the vast majority of Moslems do not read the Koran. I lived over half my life overseas. I had many Moslem friends. Most Moslems do not read the Koran or know Islamic history. Orthodox Moslems believe that the Koran can only be understood in Arabic. Thankfully they do not read Sura 9 “Spoils of War” (considered by many scholars to be some of the last sayings of Mohammed and thus more important). In fact according to UNICEF and the United Nations Islam is one of the most illiterate religions in the World. Not only do many Moslems not read the Koran; they can’t read or write at all. According to UNICEF 1/3 of all Moslem men and 1/2 of all Moslem women cannot read or write. Many Moslems have become secularized and do not know or follow the life and teachings of Mohammed and his jihad conquests as taught in the Koran and Hadith and carried out in his life until his death in 632 AD.

    I would love for you to explain to your readers how you think Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, and I would love for you to explain whether you think Osama was a true and orthodox Moslem.

  4. katargeo says:

    I do have to agree with you about the Biased News in America. It is nearly impossible to get fair and balanced news from America’s Main Television Media. Numerous studies have been done to show that American’s TV media leans far to the left. One of the better studies done by UCLA showed the left leaning bias and prejudice by American Media. If one watches CNN, ABC, CBS or MSNBC (NBC) it is very hard to get an honest reporting of events without severe left wing bias and prejudice. The UCLA study found that 18 of the 20 top media outlets leaning far left of center

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

    Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

    Another outstanding book revealing tons of data and qualified studies backing up the proving the left wing bias is: Weapons of Mass Distortion by L. Brent Bozell
    http://books.google.com/books?id=hQhWHtksTKgC&q=weapons+of+mass+distortion&dq=weapons+of+mass+distortion&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=ATDATdTYH4actwegwZGsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

    Dan Goldberg (as an insider at CBS) also does an excellent job of revealing the deliberate distortion of news and editorializing that took place in CBS.

  5. peddiebill says:

    OK, I can see we are not understanding one another. You talk of Muslims all over the world behaving violently and you say they are Muslim. When I give examples of people calling themselves Christian doing the same thing you tell me that they are not true Christians. I agree and as it happens I agree entirely with George Barna – but the bit I miss is why you believe in the double standard. Both the Bible and the Qur’an contain totally unacceptable commandments. Look at the recent Poetry post on this site. How come you only know about the unacceptable ones in the Qur’an? Both faiths have on balance some wonderful teachings. How come you have read the Qur’an well enough to know the bad culture but have completely missed the good stuff? What is more you do the opposite for the Bible. Both Christianity and Islam have a huge percentage of people claiming to follow the faith but in practice have missed the whole point. George Barna’s estimation about the percentage in the US whose behaviour matches their Christian principles sound right to me. Why won’t you allow the same possibility for the Muslim faith. Both faiths have a percentage of people who claim to follow their faith but kill other people they have never met before. In fact when it comes to violent crime there are more claiming to be Christian who do these things than Muslims hence my plea to at least look at the comparative figures. Fact: the US prisons have a large percentage on death row who claim to be Christian. Fact: in the US there is one of the biggest percentages of violent crime in the world committed for the most part by people who register themselves in prison as Christian. You say calling themselves Christian does not mean they are Christian,(and I agree) yet you insist that those calling themselves Muslim have to be Muslim???????? Fact: In Saudi Arabia, they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world and their violent crime is similarly committed by those calling themselves Muslim. Help me here. The Muslim faith teaches kindness to strangers yet you say Muslims rampaging in random acts of violence aimed at strangers are Muslim. Christianity teaches love your neighbour yet pilots who attend Church regularly drop bombs on Iraq killing civilians at random. I happen to think these are not Christian acts although no doubt George W Bush thinks they are.
    But the bit that puzzles me is why, in post after post you insist we must have a double standard. If you are allowed to notice and denounce Shaheeds who are suicide bombers and say this is what Islam stands for – tell me again why I am not allowed to say that therefore Catholic drug runners and hitmen from Columbia represent the Catholic Church. Of course I realise they are not Christian in their actions – I was merely trying to show yet again that I thought your agument was one of double standards.
    Read my other posts about Timothy McVeigh, I dont want to go over the same ground too often.
    And of course I dont accept that Osama bin Laden was true to the Muslim faith in everything he did, but I am sure he thinks he was. The same goes for the Christian practice of US special forces who killed him and his wife. As it happens I also think that both bin Laden and his killers would have been absolutely convinced that what they were doing was what they had to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s