Slamming Islam
"We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us...and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."
"But true Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery.....its a very violent religion."
Rev. Franklin Graham
"Given the heinously hurtful, bigoted statements of Mr Graham against ...Islam, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Foundation (MRFF) demands that the Pentagon Chaplain Office immediately rescind the invitation to Mr Graham (to speak at National Prayer Day observance)"
Letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by Michael L Weinstein on behalf of MRFF,
(upon request of several Muslim Defense Department employees)
As noted in our April 16 posting, the US District Court for Western Wisconsin has declared the law that directs the President to declare a National Prayer Day unconstitutional. But the ruling does not bar the President from doing so on his own volition, and he intends to sign the proclamation designating May 6 for that purpose. I consider any government sponsorship of religious activities, such as the Pentagon ceremony in which Rev. Graham is to speak, inappropriate.
The MRFF is dedicated to fighting the efforts of some military officers to subject thei soldiers to Christian evangelizing on base. On this point, I totally agree with Mr Weinstein and his group. The letter, quoted in part above, also objects to the participation of a Christian ministry led by Mr Graham in planning and conducting the Pentagon National Prayer Day observance. But I would like to focus on the claim that Graham's bashing of Islam is sufficient reason to rescind the invitation for him to speak there.
I am not defending all the statements quoted above; I do not believe that Islam mandates beating wives or killing children, and anyone can certainly practice "true Islam" legally in the US and elsewhere. Crimes of this type have been committed by Muslims, some even "in the name of Islam", but Islam does not command, or even condone, violence against family.
Yet the nexus between political terrorism in the world today and fervent Islam cannot be denied. Noted Israeli scholar Benny Morris wrote, " ...almost all the world's terrorism emanates from Muslim societies and is directed against non-Muslims (in the Philippines,Thailand, Nigeria, Sudan, Chechnya, India, London, Spain, the United States and Israel) or against other Muslims seen as collaborators with the infidels (in Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan and Indonesia." (1) Would Mr Weinstein object to Mr Morris speaking at the Pentagon, too?
Since the perpetrators of all the terrorism noted by Benny Morris have nothing in common but their Islam, there must be an aspect of that faith that impels some of its most fanatical adherents to strap-0n explosives and kill themselves and others after crying out "Allah hu akhbar!"(2) I find the common thread in these actions to be the Muslim concept of "jihad", the struggle between the forces of Islam and the enemies of Islam, which can be just about everybody else. Islamic literature and culture glorify those who give their lives for their faith ("shaheedin"). One Muslim prophecy even says that someday rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.
Perhaps great world religions go through phases of development like people do. When Christianity was the age that Islam is now, that is the Fourteenth Century, Christian firebrands went about killing and burning Jews, Muslims and even allegedly errant Christians in the name of Christ. ( Maybe if we only wait about six hundred years, Islam will have mellowed so much that the top ayatollahs will sound like Pope John XXIII. ) But right now, Islam is in a phase of self-righteous intolerance, and even of those who do not commit violence in its name, many will cheer it on from the sidelines.
So, when Franklin Graham says that "Islam has attacked us" there is a big grain of truth in that pithy remark. All our major enemies today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are fanatical Muslims. So are Hamas and Hezbollah, who threaten Israel. The Pentagon is one place in this nation where this truth should trump political correctness, and pointing this out merely acknowledges reality.
But when you introduce religion into a venue that is dedicated to national security, you bring religious antagonisms into the discussion. That is why the whole idea of a National Prayer Day ceremony at the Pentagon is bad, whether the speaker is Franklin Graham, Shmuely Boteach or Louis Farrakhan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The New Republic, April 29, 2010, page 42.
(2) Arabic for "God is Supreme!"
"But true Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery.....its a very violent religion."
Rev. Franklin Graham
"Given the heinously hurtful, bigoted statements of Mr Graham against ...Islam, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Foundation (MRFF) demands that the Pentagon Chaplain Office immediately rescind the invitation to Mr Graham (to speak at National Prayer Day observance)"
Letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by Michael L Weinstein on behalf of MRFF,
(upon request of several Muslim Defense Department employees)
As noted in our April 16 posting, the US District Court for Western Wisconsin has declared the law that directs the President to declare a National Prayer Day unconstitutional. But the ruling does not bar the President from doing so on his own volition, and he intends to sign the proclamation designating May 6 for that purpose. I consider any government sponsorship of religious activities, such as the Pentagon ceremony in which Rev. Graham is to speak, inappropriate.
The MRFF is dedicated to fighting the efforts of some military officers to subject thei soldiers to Christian evangelizing on base. On this point, I totally agree with Mr Weinstein and his group. The letter, quoted in part above, also objects to the participation of a Christian ministry led by Mr Graham in planning and conducting the Pentagon National Prayer Day observance. But I would like to focus on the claim that Graham's bashing of Islam is sufficient reason to rescind the invitation for him to speak there.
I am not defending all the statements quoted above; I do not believe that Islam mandates beating wives or killing children, and anyone can certainly practice "true Islam" legally in the US and elsewhere. Crimes of this type have been committed by Muslims, some even "in the name of Islam", but Islam does not command, or even condone, violence against family.
Yet the nexus between political terrorism in the world today and fervent Islam cannot be denied. Noted Israeli scholar Benny Morris wrote, " ...almost all the world's terrorism emanates from Muslim societies and is directed against non-Muslims (in the Philippines,Thailand, Nigeria, Sudan, Chechnya, India, London, Spain, the United States and Israel) or against other Muslims seen as collaborators with the infidels (in Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan and Indonesia." (1) Would Mr Weinstein object to Mr Morris speaking at the Pentagon, too?
Since the perpetrators of all the terrorism noted by Benny Morris have nothing in common but their Islam, there must be an aspect of that faith that impels some of its most fanatical adherents to strap-0n explosives and kill themselves and others after crying out "Allah hu akhbar!"(2) I find the common thread in these actions to be the Muslim concept of "jihad", the struggle between the forces of Islam and the enemies of Islam, which can be just about everybody else. Islamic literature and culture glorify those who give their lives for their faith ("shaheedin"). One Muslim prophecy even says that someday rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.
Perhaps great world religions go through phases of development like people do. When Christianity was the age that Islam is now, that is the Fourteenth Century, Christian firebrands went about killing and burning Jews, Muslims and even allegedly errant Christians in the name of Christ. ( Maybe if we only wait about six hundred years, Islam will have mellowed so much that the top ayatollahs will sound like Pope John XXIII. ) But right now, Islam is in a phase of self-righteous intolerance, and even of those who do not commit violence in its name, many will cheer it on from the sidelines.
So, when Franklin Graham says that "Islam has attacked us" there is a big grain of truth in that pithy remark. All our major enemies today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are fanatical Muslims. So are Hamas and Hezbollah, who threaten Israel. The Pentagon is one place in this nation where this truth should trump political correctness, and pointing this out merely acknowledges reality.
But when you introduce religion into a venue that is dedicated to national security, you bring religious antagonisms into the discussion. That is why the whole idea of a National Prayer Day ceremony at the Pentagon is bad, whether the speaker is Franklin Graham, Shmuely Boteach or Louis Farrakhan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The New Republic, April 29, 2010, page 42.
(2) Arabic for "God is Supreme!"
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
First of all the Koran does instruct men to beat their wives and explains how to do it.
Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:
1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
I have listed 6 translations to prove the point from all available angles.
While the Koran does not instruct one to kill ("honor killings") ones daughters if they have boyfriends or premarital sex, these actiosn by unmarried Muslim woman are punishable by execution according to Sharia Law.
Also, honor is extremely important in Islam so fathers and brothers often take Sharia law into their own hands when this occurs in their own house.
Thus while the Koran does not dictate "honor killings", it is surely largely responsible for them.
See here for confirmation of the above:
http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm
I don't know where to begin, as you have covered many issues in your column. I first of all wonder what your actual personal experience is with living with or among muslim people? Though I have travelled to a muslim country, and was treated hospitally as a guest, I also witnessed horrific treatment of non-m, and minorities which made me weep. I have opened my home to all people: hindu's muslims, sihk's, and jews. Though I can be respectful of people of all backgrounds, I do not necessarily agree with of have to endorse the ideology of all religious groups of people, as they are in contradiction to themselves. Furthermore, Allowing the free flow of prayer at an event to be held at the Pentagon, does NOT establish or propagate religion. It does honor the tradition and allow for the free flow of thinking that calling on a Higher power is not only helpful, but productive. If someone wants to choose that choice, why are others so quick to find fault or take offense to that? I have heard an idea that we should judge something by the fruit that is produced. Wouldn't we be also more productive working to recognize and stop real enemies than fighting against that which produces abundant fruit? For example, just because i don't like the wine produced in a vineyard, doesn't mean that the vineyard or even wine is my bad, or should be considered my enemy. Rather, I might want to identify a bug that would destroy the crop of vineyard trees, or an individual that would come about to burn or trample down the vineyard. I don't know if I am making my point clear, but to state it matter-of-factly: why fight against, or speak out against/attack the character of Franklin Graham, who's life has been dedicated to showing the love he has personally experienced by God, and further attempts to help children and families in need, when he has never done anything to you, accept aggitate you with a few words he spoke somewhere. Why not spend your time, looking for ways to stop real enemies, or better yet, doing something good for someone else, and leaving it up to the God Franklin Graham serves to judge his life.
Post a Comment
<< Home