Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
I attended a debate recently. The issue: Is Islam a Religion of Peace, and is Shariah, or Islamic law, consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Arguing in the affirmative was Suhail, whom I would consider a moderate Muslim. Arguing in the negative was Frank, an American who considers Islam to be a threat to Western civilization. The following is an abridged version of the actual debate. See what you think.
Suhail: The U.S. Constitution protects us all from discrimination on the basis of religious belief. All faiths are American faiths, and are protected. There are no religious tests here, and American Muslims have integrated themselves into American life. They serve their country, even in the military. Muslims respect Jews and Christians as “people of the book,” and all three religions worship the same God of Abraham. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and play by the rules. Racists want hate, not the truth. They say that Islam is violent, but similar racist remarks were said about Catholics and Jews. Anti-Muslim is Anti-Semitism on training wheels. Many Muslims condemned 9/11. Racist rhetoric leads to violence, and we must not succumb to prejudice.
Frank: I look at this from a national security perspective. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Shariah law finds its roots in the Quran. There is a principle in the Quran called “abrogation” (Sura 2:106) by which earlier Quranic passages, which are more tolerant of other religions, are superseded by later passages. Therefore, the Medina passages, which are extreme and intolerant, are seen by the Islamic authorities as replacing previous passages. “Fight and slay the unbelievers where you find them.” “Fight them, even the people of the book.” “Take not the Jews or Christians for your friends…” The early, peaceful passages are superseded by these Medina passages, and are a part of the directive to assure the triumph of Islam.
This is according to the 4 Sunni schools, and the Shia schools as well. It is God’s will for Islam to rule the world and Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. If you disagree, you are an apostate. Ultimately, Jihad will call for violence, but until that is possible, a “soft Jihad” is recommended, by which Muslim are to work from within to destroy Western civilization, so that Allah’s religion is made supreme. Therefore, some Muslims are a 5th column which promotes the destruction of the Constitution in the form of Shariah law.
Suhail: “Abrogation” is generally not accepted, except by terrorists and racists. All religions contain perverse passages in Holy Scripture, exhorting people to violence. The Medina period was a time of war, which explains the Prophet’s rhetoric. History proves that Islam was tolerant of other religions. Mainstream Muslims believe in peace. Shariah is interpretive law, and is not dogmatic. The word “Jihad” conflates Islam with politics, which is what Bin Laden wants. People who support terrorism do so for political reasons. People who oppose terrorism do so for religious reasons. We should not give our religion to the terrorists. We cannot allow the terrorists to set the agenda with regard to religious belief.
Frank: As part of its “soft Jihad” agenda, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks the following:
1. To dominate Muslims, to radicalize them, and to recruit them to Jihad.
2. To intimidate opponents.
3. To create parallel societies, with their own sets of laws, preferential arrangements, dress codes, etc., by which Shariah is used to subvert the U.S. Constitution.
Sahriah is a very strict regiment in 75% of U.S. mosques. The “stealth” or “soft” Jihad will eventually lead to violent Jihad.
Suhail: Terrorists are trying to co-opt Islam. I don’t want to give them my religion. Mainstream Muslims are not extreme, and wearing a headscarf is no “soft Jihad.” People should be able to practice their faith without being suspect.
Frank: Other religions, like Judaism and Christianity, acknowledge the national authority of the state. Shariah does not. All the recognized authoritative Islamic sources endorse using Shariah to displace secular law. Islam seeks to curb free speech in order to stop criticism.
Suhail: Islam is an interpretive law. You interpret it for the land you live in.
Frank: Shariah is not a matter on interpretation. Non-Muslims will have 3 choices: 1. Accept Islam, 2. Accept dhimmitude status, or 3. Die. It’s not just Al Qaeda’s whack interpretation. No. Al Qaeda reflects authoritative Islam.
Suhail: Is there a clash of civilizations? No. It’s a clash between those who believe in civilization, and those, like the terrorists, who don’t. Three Muslim countries elected women as heads of state. Most Muslims are comfortable with modernity. The terrorists are not manifesting Islam, and should not be allowed to set the agenda. When Jews were persecuted by the Christians, where did they go? To Muslim states. Many scholars interpret Shariah as consistent with the Constitution and with modernity.
Frank: Many moderate Muslims reject Shariah, but Wahabbis are winning in many areas. They will extinguish the moderate practice of Islam. Islam is waging Jihad against the civilized world. It’s not just the extremists. The mainstream accepts this authoritative version of the faith. Just look at the authoritative texts. Our country is on the line.
Suhail: You see before you two worldviews, extreme and moderate. It’s up to you to decide. Bin Laden, and other racists like him, foster hate. Terrorism is political, not religious. Faith brings strength to America, and all faiths should be allowed to participate in American democracy.
Frank: We are confronting a dangerous ideology bent on our destruction. A 5th column is working to do us in and we should fight back. This ideology wants to impose Shariah on the whole world. It’s not just Bin Laden who says this. The authoritative interpretations of Islam concur. Our only hope is to mobilize the support of Muslim moderates against the supporters of Shariah.
Who do you think is right? Or could they both be right and wrong at the same time?
RSS 
And therein lies the problem.....
Cool post.
Thanks.
But the problem starts when the people who spreads terror, are also the followers of Islam. That is the time when we don't know who to trust.
We have no choice but to use our God-given common sense to differentiate between what is true, what makes sense, from what is false. We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated so easily. We can respect Holy Scripture, and abide by its teachings, even as we discriminate between what makes sense and what doesn’t.
To my mind, at least, God did not write scripture. God wrote the universe, and gave us the common sense to decifer its meaning.
If the extremists preach an ideology of violent Jihad, we will preach an Ideology of Common Sense.
If the extremists invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we will invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which protect our environment, jobs which grow our economies, and jobs which help to curb the allure of ideological extremism.
If the extremists sell a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins, or what have you, we will sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.
At every turn, we will cut them off at the pass, and beat them at their own game. They will become pariahs in the midst. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
terrorists are merely using Islam for their benefit
>>> Not only Islam, they use all possible tools do divide people against each other - religion, cast, color
>>> Most of us are are intelligent to point out what tools terrorists are using. But it is also important to figure out that terrorists themselves are a tool. They are a tools in hand of politicians. Scope of politic changes - it could be provincial, national or international. In connection the scope of terrorism too keeps changing.
.......
Those of us who feel that Islamic Terrorism has originated because of the inherent violent teaching of Islam, I would like to put forth a few points. They need not change their view about Islam, but I would request them to at least do some thinking on these points.
(1) Indian has two Muslim dominated neighbors - Pakistan & Bangladesh (which was east Pakistan before). Why is that the ”inherent violence of Islam” is more evident in Pakistan but no so much in Bangladesh (there is some extent of violence in Bangladesh too, but such violence is there in non-Islamic countries too. Just compare the extent of organized terrorism in two Muslim countries)? What makes the Pakistan & Bangladesh so different? The terrorism in Pakistan is not funded by Religious obligations. It is funded by ISI and ISI is funded by CIA. The fact that USA has not stepped in to Bangladesh, explains the difference. Have you heard of terrorist camps being run in Saudi Arabia? If terrorist camps were inherent in Islam, you would find most advanced kind of training being given to terrorist in Saudi Arabia - as it is the riches Muslim country. But the terrorism is being preached in the parts of world, where poverty is at its high.
(2) Why is that Pakistan, which runs the Islamic terror camps, is surviving on funding from USA? Is USA a Muslim country? If it is not, why do they fund a Muslim country sponsoring terrorism? If world Muslim community is pro-terrorism, why they do not contribute (similar to what USA is doing) to the international funding to Pakistan? Does not USA has double standards? They keep funding the terrorist in Pakistan, to have a control in Asia. At the same time they associate this terrorism (which is funded by themselves) to entire Islam, and thus malign the international Islamic community?
(3) In the origins of Islam you would find some sort of violence. But you need to look in to the environment at the time when Islam was born. Was Christian community at that time as diplomatic and peaceful as it looks now? Which was the first religion to first invent the Jihad? Were these not the Christian Crusader - who killed innocent people under religious umbrella? And did those crusader not enjoy the support of Church? If Islam was a religion born to defend itself against a Crusading Religion, it was natural that it would have had some thoughts and provisions of violence. But in today’s world both the religions have changed. Christianity has become more human and refined, and so has Islam. The ”Islamic Terror” thing is just a propaganda to malign the international muslim community. America is too afraid of Arab countries wealth. These countries became wealthy only because of ”Oil-Boom”. And as the oil market has boomed, so had boomed the American Propaganda about ”Islamic Terror”. Before ”Islamic Terror”, American propaganda was about ”Communist Evil”. Once they destroy the wealth of Arab Nations, their propaganda will be against the next prosperous country.
I disagree.Most of the terrorists activities have been committed ” in the name of Alllah”.One of the goals of terrorists ,supported by the dubious elements within Muslim world,is to create Islamic order of things.Expansion of Islamic rule is one of the important goals.
I disagree.Most of the terrorist activities have been committed ” in the name of Alllah”.One of the goals of terrorists ,supported by the dubious elements within Muslim world,is to create Islamic order of things.Expansion of Islamic rule is one of the important goals.
i am agree with you, now adays most of the super power coutries use the name of the terrorism for the different parties, doing bomb blasts and other worst actions through them for their benefits and to give the title of terrorist to the Muslims which is totally a wrong idea, if we think that the terrorism is an islamic religious party it doesnt make any sense as most of us see that now adays the all terrorists operations are in islamic countries and every day the innocent people specially muslims die in their blosts and lose their everything. we know that islam is the religioun of peace and islam doesnt allow most of the actions that the terrorist do. so we can simply undrestand that the terrorism is not a religious issue in fact it is political.
But for the most part, terror is being used as a way of consolidating political power by focusing on the ”enemy,” and lashing out against him.
The reason that terrorists use the language of religion to make their case is because they know that there are many believers out there, believers who feel disenfranchised by the system, and they know that the language of religion, and an appeal to religious belief, is an effective way of moving the man on the street toward your cause. And that is why the extremists have little difficulty in recruiting young martyrs to their cause.
But it is important to keep in mind that the extremist leadership is pursuing political power, just like anyone else, and is using religion to their advantage, because that is what is available to them, and that is what the man on the street is likely to respond to.
The trick, therefore, in combating terrorism, is to give the man on the street a choice. If he looks at the table and sees only an ideology of hate, and a charitable handout, then that’s what he’s going to buy into, because that’s all there is. But if he looks at the table and sees a job, and an ideology which makes more sense, then now there’s a choice, and the vast majority will choose a life, and would help you fight those who would take that life away.
The West is well advised to put that choice on the table. If the West is good at anything it is making and investing money. Why not use this strength as part and parcel of our strategic arsenal to promote the peace, and to defeat the ideological extremist?
i am agree with you, now adays most of the super power coutries use the name of the terrorism for the different parties, doing bomb blasts and other worst actions through them for their benefits and to give the title of terrorist to the Muslims which is totally a wrong idea, if we think that the terrorism is an islamic religious party it doesnt make any sense as most of us see that now adays the all terrorists operations are in islamic countries and every day the innocent people specially muslims die in their blosts and lose their everything. we know that islam is the religioun of peace and islam doesnt allow most of the actions that the terrorist do. so we can simply undrestand that the terrorism is not a religious issue in fact it is political.
yes, it is up to our common sense what to accept and what not to accept. nothing should be compelled. If Shariah calls for any kind of compulsion, it must not be implemented. Religion is best kept a personal and spiritual matter, not a political, legislative or any other matter.
