Recently, Yunis al-Astal, a Palestinian member of parliament, issued the following ominous threat on televsion:
"… The most important message is that our enemies should know that there is no place for them on the land of Palestine. Each and every boy and man, and each and every girl and woman, is a potential martyrdom-seeker. The enemy should know that we are prepared to wear explosive belts, and to throw ourselves in the midst of the enemy, in order to make them taste the evil consequences of their deeds. They should know that they have no other choice – either they leave or they will die, even if it takes a long time."
Source
8 comments:
Dear David
Why don't you quote Muslim Scholars who condemn suicide bombing?...
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=CAF02&articleID=CAF020016&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ14&articleID=MNJ140003&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ14&articleID=MNJ140001&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ14&articleID=MNJ140004&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ14&articleID=MNJ140007&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ14&articleID=MNJ140006&articlePages=1
and why don't you show the readers of your site why the palestinians are so angry at the Israelis for invading their land, destroying their homes and killing their innocents...
http://palestinevideos.com/
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine46.html
Its curious why you present one sided views, why not show both sides to the story?
Regards,
Bassam
Bassam said: "Why don't you quote Muslim Scholars who condemn suicide bombing?..."
First, because I know that you will do it here in the comments section. (Note: If I wanted to be one-sided, I simply wouldn't allow comments from Muslims. But I do, so I'm obviously not trying to hide anything.)
Second, because those Muslim scholars aren't an immediate threat to the safety of others. (Note: If a group of, say, radical Mormons was threatening to annihilate people, it would be important to let people know about it. Whether or not all Mormons agree would be irrelevant.)
To flip the question around, do you go around telling people what violent Muslims are saying?
Bassam said: "and why don't you show the readers of your site why the palestinians are so angry at the Israelis for invading their land, destroying their homes and killing their innocents..."
Wow! It sounds like you're justifying what these Muslims are doing! It's as if you're saying, "Suicide bombing is wrong, unless you're really angry at someone."
David said:
Second, because those Muslim scholars aren't an immediate threat to the safety of others. (Note: If a group of, say, radical Mormons was threatening to annihilate people, it would be important to let people know about it. Whether or not all Mormons agree would be irrelevant.)
Well, you can atleast give hope to the people and let them know that not all Muslims agree with this. Why don't you talk about the North Korean nuclear threat and warn people about them? Oh yeah, they aren't Muslims I forgot.
Why don't you warn people about Christian terrorist groups such as Christian Identity that go and blow up abortion clinics? Oh yeah, they aren't Muslims I forgot.
David said: Wow! It sounds like you're justifying what these Muslims are doing! It's as if you're saying, "Suicide bombing is wrong, unless you're really angry at someone."
I don't know how you saw that as a justification. What I am basically saying is that you should let people know what the cause of the problem is. Why do we have these suicide attacks? What is causing this? Why are people enticed to do this? Let them know the reason and that is the Israeli oppression. I am asking people to understand why those people are doing this, I am not justifying it.
Bassam said: "Why don't you talk about the North Korean nuclear threat and warn people about them? Oh yeah, they aren't Muslims I forgot."
This blog isn't titled "Answering Koreans." We have a purpose, and it's odd of you to criticize us for not covering everything in the world.
Bassam said: "Why don't you warn people about Christian terrorist groups such as Christian Identity that go and blow up abortion clinics? Oh yeah, they aren't Muslims I forgot."
(1) Any Christian group that could misinterpret and ignore the words of Jesus to such an extent that they become terrorists would hardly qualify as a Christian group.
(2) Again, this site is about Muslims. If you'd like to start a blog about "Christian" terrorist groups, feel free to do so. (I doubt you'll have much material to work with.)
(3) Whereas such groups are extraordinarily rare among Christians, terrrorist groups are quite common among Muslims, thanks to the teachings of Muhammad. As such, it seems more important to discuss the grounds for terrorism in Islam.
Dear David
So it seems like your not concerned with warning people from harm, just from 'Muslims'. Its clear you have a biased agenda.
As for christian terrorism, trust me there is plenty I can work with http://www.muslim-responses.com/christian_terrorism_
I anxiously await to see your future articles where you supposedly prove that the Muslims do terrorism because of Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) teachings.
If anyone learned anything, its the Israeli Jews following the Old Testament to justify killing innocents because God gave them the 'promised land'
Bassam said: "So it seems like your not concerned with warning people from harm, just from 'Muslims'."
As I said, I'm concerned with a particular topic. And you know very well why I'm more interested in Islam than in North Korea. Violent Muslims are a far greater threat to the world than violent Koreans.
Bassam said: "If anyone learned anything, its the Israeli Jews following the Old Testament to justify killing innocents because God gave them the 'promised land'"
Actually, if you're referring to current events, the Jews didn't go in and take the land. Western nations took the land after defeating Muslims in battle. Then these nations gave it to the Jews.
Are you opposed to taking land by force? If so, I'd like to share some Islamic history with you . . .
Yeah but the Jews gladly took it and are still occupying and even invaded more lands in 1966 and so on to increase their land mass. All justification from where? The Old Testament.
As for invasions by islamic armies. They invaded lands whose rulers were oppressing them. They invaded lands that put a barrier between the preaching of Islam to the people, its like putting a barrier between the doctor and patient.
One classic example is the Muslim invasion of Spain. They invaded Spain because the Jews were complaining from Christian persection.
In Ceuta, Visigothic rivals of Roderic gathered along with Arians and Jews fleeing forced conversions at the hands of the Catholic bishops who controlled the Visigothic monarchy. (Source: Wikipedia)
· February 715 - Musa ibn Nusair Governor of North Africa entered Damascus with the Visigoth kings and princes and for the first time hundreds of western royalty and thousands of European captives were seen offering homage to the commander of the believers In Damascus. Musa the Conqueror of North Africa and Iberia ended up as a beggar in a remote village in Al-Hijaz. His son Abd Al-Aziz was announced first Amir of Andalus and married the widow of King Roderick, Egilona Balthes. Seville became the Capital.
Some claim that he was invited to intervene by the heirs of the Visigothic King, Wittiza, in the Visigothic civil war. (Source: Wikipedia)
Taken from http://www.hispanicmuslims.com/andalusia/andalusia.html
Another theory for the occupation by the Arab Muslims of Spain is that because of their persecution, the Jews called upon their contacts in North Africa, who in turn encouraged the able Arabs to capture Spain. This allowed the Almoravids and the Almohads to establish themselves in Spain. (Vernet, Juan. Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Abrams, 1992) Nevertheless, without a doubt, the Jews supported and welcomed Muslims in Spain because they were great beneficiaries under Muslim rule. (Burckhardt, Titus. Moorish Architecture in Spain. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972.)
Muslims entered Spain not as aggressors or oppressors, but as liberators. In this multicultural society, many Jews and Christians held government positions. Moreover, the Golden Age of Jewish history is in fact known as the period of Muslim rule in Spain. Islam allowed the Jews to flourish in Spain, with the example of the renowned philosopher Moses Maimonides, (Musa ibn Maymun) who wrote Guide to the Perplexed. "Judaism probably welcomed the conquest of Spain by the Muslims in 711. With the Muslim conquest began a Golden Age of freedom and tolerance for Jews. They freely entered the fields of government, science, medicine, and literature." (Hopfe, Lewis. Religions of the World. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998) Spain was home to by far the largest and most brilliant Jewish community in Europe; elsewhere, the Jews were hounded and persecuted. Although non-Muslims paid more in taxes than the Muslims, it was by far less than any previous government had imposed upon them, especially Roderic's. In addition, it obviously wasn't much of a burden, however, since non-Muslims freely opted and longed to live under Muslim rule.
"Throughout the period of Islamic rule, Al-Andalus was a remarkable example and outstanding model of tolerance." (Benchrifa, Mohamed. The Routes of Al-Andalus. http://mirror-us.unesco.org/culture/al-andalus/html_eng/andalus2.htm) We fail to remember that the tolerance the Muslims, in accordance to their faith, displayed towards the Jews and Christians enabled them all to live together in relative peace and harmony, an indication of the Greatness of Islam, without question. No where else has there been so long and so close of a relationship between the 3 Great faiths. All Jews and Christians were allowed to maintain their beliefs and live their lives as they desired as long as they respected their Muslim rulers. "Some Mozarabs took issue with the tolerance Muslim authorities displayed toward them and the Jews, a tolerance based on two Qur'anic verses: "No compulsion is there in religion" (2:256) and "If thy Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth would have believed, all of them, all together. Wouldst thou then constrain the people until they are believers?" (10:99)..." (Vernet, Juan. Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: Abrams, 1992) As a result of the compassion Islam displayed towards the non-Muslims inhabitants, many of them embraced Islam. Many accepted Islam simply because Islam provided a superior, healthier way of life at a time when the social system was in rapid decay. (Thomson, Ahmad. Blood on the Cross: Islam in Spain in the Light of Christian Persecution through the Ages England: TaHa Publishers Ltd, 1989) Unfortunately, religious tolerance was never a virtue in Christian Europe, as in the example of Charlemagne. (Shubert, Adrian. The Land and People of Spain. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992) And so, the peace exhibited under Muslim rule did not continue after the last of the Muslim rulers was defeated in 1492.
In a time of tranquility and justice, the Christians have never been compelled to renounce the Gospel and to embrace the Qur'an." (Gibbon, E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)
This is contrary to the Christian treatment of the Muslims when they invaded them in Spain.
Isabella, in her fierce quest to eradicate Islam from Spain, issued forth decrees of mass conversions in her 'Holy War' ** against the Muslims. Muslim prayers were forbidden and mosques in their original splendor were destroyed and converted into churches. (Hasan, Khola. The Crumbling Minarets of Spain. Saudi Arabia: Abul Qasim Publications, 1991) Muslims were converted to Christianity, who were usually insincere Christians fearing for their lives, but remained Muslim by heart. They too, called "Moriscos" were soon to be expelled, in 1605, because they weren't accepted as real Christians, and certainly weren't allowed to live as Muslims and embrace Islam openly. (Thomson, Ahmad. Blood on the Cross: Islam in Spain in the Light of Christian Persecution through the Ages England: TaHa Publishers Ltd, 1989)
Thus, Muslims do not blame Judaism itself for injustices committed by Jews against Palestinians. Nor do they blame Christianity per se for the crimes committed by Church-sanctioned medieval Crusades; for atrocities committed during the conquest of Spain by Christian armies and the subsequent persecution and expulsion of Muslims; nor for the horrors of the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre or any number of similar tragedies. (Mohammed Al Masry, "Viewpoint: History dispels the lies about Islam", Middle East Times, March 13, 2006, Source)
This is contrary to the Christian treatment of the Muslims when they invaded them in Spain.
A. Was Spain always a Muslim land? No.
B. All quoting from the Medieval period shows is that Medieval Christianity was a state-run enterprise. You've failed to distinguish between revealed religion and civil religion, between Medieval Christianity and it's ties to Romanism and post-Reformation Christianity and the republican and democratic systems that sprung from it. Why should David, a Protestant, be held accountable for the actions of Medievalism.
I'd also add that your own Qu'ran looks to the Old Testament, so what we have here is your criticizing the Jews for following the commandments of a covenant in the Old Testament, a testament your own religion calls "true."
We can certainly argue theology of Holy War and how it fits into the discipline known as biblical theology. First, why don't you familiarize yourself with the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the New. A good starting place would be Vos' Biblical Theology or the collected works of Michael Horton or O.Palmer Robertson. When you've done that get back to us.
"Holy War" in the NT age is indexed to church discipline, since the covenant community is dispersed. Most Christians today argue for church-state separation. We can legislate the second, but not the first table, of the Law. Baptists argue that directly from their doctrine of voluntary, regenerate church membership. Presbyterians and others, who have a mixed membership, argue it from their courts/session/presbytery or colloquy systems (as in Lutheranism). That translates into religious liberty as a republican or parliamentary form.
In Islam, you have a tension between moderates and fundamentalists, but you have no substantitive disagreement over Islam taking on the role of a state church because in Islamic theology this has always been the case. Holy War and a state religion are not concepts alien to Islam. Ironically, that same argument can be made from Romanism, so in criticizing Rome in the Medieval Period and the Medieval idea of church and state inextricably bound, you are criticizing nothing truly different than Islam's own predilections. Romanism gets it from their own views of authority itself, only part of which includes the Bible. When you run to Sola Scriptura, however, the Protestant rule of faith, that disappears, and a state bound to the church and vice versa becomes inconsistent.
They invaded lands that put a barrier between the preaching of Islam to the people, its like putting a barrier between the doctor and patient.
Oh, so if a land is perceived as placing a barrier between the preaching of Islam and the people, that justifies an invasion.
Let's just be clear here, you're arguing that it is okay to invade a sovereign land for religious reasons that favor Islam. One fails to see how this helps your argument.
Post a Comment