Category: Other Religions

Jewish World Report carries a worthwhile story by Daniel Pipes on the persecutions Christians are facing in Palestinian-held lands.

EXCERPTS:

What some observers are calling a pogrom took place near Ramallah, West Bank, on the night of Sep. 3-4. That’s when fifteen Muslim youths from one village, Dair Jarir, rampaged against Taybeh, a neighboring all-Christian village of 1,500 people.

The reason for the assault? A Muslim woman from Dair Jarir, Hiyam Ajaj, 23, fell in love with her Christian boss, Mehdi Khouriyye, owner of a tailor shop in Taybeh. The couple maintained a clandestine two-year affair and she became pregnant in about March 2005. When her family learned of her condition, it murdered her. That was on about Sep. 1; unsatisfied even with this "honor killing" — for Islamic law strictly forbids non-Muslim males to have sexual relations with Muslim females — the Ajaj men sought vengeance against Khouriyye and his family.

The article notes that many Christians have been fleeing the Holy Land due to Muslim persecution:

The campaign of persecution has succeeded. Even as the Christian population of Israel grows, that of the Palestinian Authority shrinks precipitously. Bethlehem and Nazareth, historic Christian towns for nearly two millennia, are now primarily Muslim. In 1922, Christians outnumbered Muslims in Jerusalem; today, Christians amount to a mere 2 percent of that city’s population.

"Is Christian life liable to be reduced to empty church buildings and a congregation-less hierarchy with no flock in the birthplace of Christianity?" So asks Daphne Tsimhoni in the Middle East Quarterly.

GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

While checking out another article on the the Arab news site Aljazeera.net, I stumbled across an interesting editorial on the history of relations between Islam and the West, as seen by a female Muslim scholar who works at the University of London:

"Why are negative images of Islam more prevalent than any others? Why is it still acceptable to say things about Muslims that would simply be deemed unacceptable of Jews, Christians, or Buddhists?

"That years of inter-faith dialogue have done little to advance a better understanding of the Islamic faith in the western world is an indication of how profoundly entrenched in the Western psyche crude misrepresentations and vulgar stereotypes of Islam are.

"Indeed, much of what is said of Islam today is in reality medieval in origin. The terms might have a modern ring to them, but the content remains very much medieval in essence. The roots stretch as far back as the 7th century, to Christianity’s earliest encounter with Islam.

[…]

"The medieval Christian view of Islam as a deviant, violent, licentious and heretical creed was secularised, stripped of its transcendental character and rearticulated within a modern essentialist philosophy that continues to define the terms of western discourse on Islam, in its mainstream at least.

"The correspondence between what is said and written today and the medieval texts we have inherited on the subject of Islam is so striking that I often have to remind myself that it is not the words of a medieval author I am reading, but those of a contemporary writer. True, the language is modern, but its content is largely medieval."

GET THE STORY.

Reading carefully through these arguments, I was struck by how very similar they are in some respects to Catholic arguments againts Protestant polemicists, and even Christian arguments against agnostic and atheistic polemicists. The root of the argument on all fronts is that apologists for a particular religion often perceive that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of what that religion actually teaches or what its adherents actually believe.

Since this article does not offer much by way of example about how Islam is allegedly misinterpreted by its Christian critics, I cannot comment on the merits of this scholar’s complaint.

But it does demonstrate one point that I think we can take to heart: Before critiquing another religion, listen to its adherents and evaluate what they say they believe. Compare and contrast to the historical teachings of the religion as needed, of course, but take seriously the explanation offered by those who believe in the religion. 

Hard as it may be to believe, it is likely that a believer in a particular religion, however incomplete that religion may be, really does understand better what it teaches than does an outsider.  The outsider may or may not have a more complete religion to offer, but he won’t get a hearing for it until he takes seriously the concerns and religious commitments of the person he’s evangelizing.

In other words, just as there is nothing more frustrating for a Catholic than to be told "You worship Mary," or for a Christian, "The idea of a god is just a crutch religionists use to avoid reality," so it must equally be frustrating for a Muslim to be told "You worship a false god." With such frustrations clouding the air, there is little likelihood that anyone is going to listening — really listening — to each other and thus furthering the spread of the gospel.

UPDATE:  Thanks to the reader who corrected my Latin grammar.  I is grateful. 😉

I mean, how many Islamic dudes do you get writing for the L.A. Times who say things like:

One can appreciate the Koran’s inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.

Let’s push this point further. Because pious Muslims emulate Muhammad’s life, those who compiled the Koran’s verses after his death might have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human — as human as Muhammad himself.

Moreover, they collected the Koran’s verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn’t personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn’t it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?

In asking this question, I’m neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life [EARTH TO THOUGHTFUL DUDE: Actually, you are inviting "another" fatwa against your life, but more power to you]. I’m saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we’re going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?

What this gentleman points out is all true, and all part of Islamic tradition, but it is deliberately neglected. It’s surprising to find a Muslim willing to take on this subject with such frankness in such a major newspaper–even here in America.

The guy’s got moxie!

GET THE STORY.

I mean, how many Islamic dudes do you get writing for the L.A. Times who say things like:

One can appreciate the Koran’s inherent worth, as I do, while recognizing that it contains ambiguities, inconsistencies, outright contradictions — and the possibility of human editing. This is not simply a reform-minded Muslim speaking. This is Islamic tradition talking.

For centuries, philosophers of Islam have been telling the story of the "Satanic Verses." The Prophet Muhammad accepted them as authentic entries into the Koran. Later, he realized they deify heathen idols rather than God. So he belatedly rejected the verses, blaming them on a trick played by Satan. Which implies that the Prophet edited the Koran.

Let’s push this point further. Because pious Muslims emulate Muhammad’s life, those who compiled the Koran’s verses after his death might have followed his example of editing along the way. The compilers were, after all, only human — as human as Muhammad himself.

Moreover, they collected the Koran’s verses from sundry surfaces such as bones, stones and bark. How did the passages get there? According to Islamic lore, the Prophet, an illiterate trader, couldn’t personally record them. His companions served as scribes, often writing from memory. Given so much human involvement, isn’t it possible that errors infiltrated the "authoritative" Koran?

In asking this question, I’m neither impugning the allegorical wisdom of the Koran nor inviting another fatwa on my life [EARTH TO THOUGHTFUL DUDE: Actually, you are inviting "another" fatwa against your life, but more power to you]. I’m saying that Muslims have to get comfortable asking such questions — and not merely whispering them — if we’re going to avoid a further desecration of human life. Riots in Afghanistan have already resulted in at least 14 deaths. Aid workers have been attacked; their offices burned. How does this benefit the cause of dignity — for anyone?

What this gentleman points out is all true, and all part of Islamic tradition, but it is deliberately neglected. It’s surprising to find a Muslim willing to take on this subject with such frankness in such a major newspaper–even here in America.

The guy’s got moxie!

GET THE STORY.

Y’know why (sane, theologically-balanced) Christians aren’t willing to use violence in the name of their religion any more?

The Reformation was part of the reason.

Specifically: The Wars of Religion that followed the Reformation were so horrible that they forced Christians on both sides of the confessional divide to re-think the degree to which those Old Testament texts dealing with the religious use of violence were really applicable to our society today.

In the end, folks concluded that they weren’t.

Problem is: Muslims have never had a Reformation and have never been forced to conclude that those texts in the Qur’an that talk about the religious use of violence need to be declared inapplicable to today. As a result, many (though by no means all!) Muslims are willing to use violence to advance their religious goals.

It is therefore an urgent priority for the future of world affairs that Islam go down the path that Christianity went down and learn not to use violence in the service of religion.

How that might happen is unclear, but

ACCORDING TO ONE GUY, THE ISLAMIC REFORMATION IS HERE.

YEE-HAW!

A group representing 70% of Spain’s mosques has issued a fatwa against bin Laden.

(WHAT A FATWA IS.)

According to this fatwa:

"[T]he terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organization al-Qaida … are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam."

It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran … they are committing the crime of ‘istihlal’ and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term ‘istihlal’ refers to the act of making up one’s own laws.

Take that, UBL! In your face!

Now, unfortunately, a fatwa ain’t as good as a ruling from the Vatican because Islam has no central hierarchy, and Muslim clerics can and do issue contradictory fataawa (i.e., "fatwa"s). The Evil One has issued some fataawa himself.

Nevertheless, the fact that a group of clerics has had the guts to issue one against him is itself a sign that Muslim opinion is turning against UBL and that the War on Terror is being won.

More:

The commission [that issued the fatwa]’s secretary general, Mansur Escudero, said the group had consulted with Muslim leaders in other countries, such as Morocco — home to most of the jailed suspects in the bombings — Algeria and Libya, and had their support.

"They agree," Escudero said, referring to the Muslim leaders in the three North African countries. "What I want is that they say so publicly."

GET THE (HEARTENING!) STORY.

Oh yeah, and one story I saw indicated the fatwa-issuers took a bit of a rhetorical swipe at the U.S. for overreacting after 9/11, but I can put that aside. The big news is the denunciation of UBL.

WHOA!

Powerline is reporting that Bat Ye’or is going to be on Bill O’Reilly tonight!

What is "Bat Ye’or"? The pseudonym of a Jewish woman from Egypt. Hence "Bat Ye’or" means "Daughter of the Nile" (in Hebrew).

Why does Bat Ye’or use a pen name? Because she is the foremost scholar of dhimmitude.

What is dhimmitude? The condition of  the dhimmi (THEM-ee), the "protected" non-Muslim peoples in Muslim society (e.g., Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians), whereby they are allowed not to be given the choice of convert-or-die as long as they pay special taxes Muslims don’t have to pay and live in subjugation to Muslims.

Who is Bill O’Reilly? Y’know . . . "the crabby man."

I’m amazed at Bat Ye’or going on TV. I was surprised before when I heard she was doing a public talk. Putting her face on international television is a whole ‘nuther deal! God protect her!

WHOA!

Powerline is reporting that Bat Ye’or is going to be on Bill O’Reilly tonight!

What is "Bat Ye’or"? The pseudonym of a Jewish woman from Egypt. Hence "Bat Ye’or" means "Daughter of the Nile" (in Hebrew).

Why does Bat Ye’or use a pen name? Because she is the foremost scholar of dhimmitude.

What is dhimmitude? The condition of  the dhimmi (THEM-ee), the "protected" non-Muslim peoples in Muslim society (e.g., Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians), whereby they are allowed not to be given the choice of convert-or-die as long as they pay special taxes Muslims don’t have to pay and live in subjugation to Muslims.

Who is Bill O’Reilly? Y’know . . . "the crabby man."

I’m amazed at Bat Ye’or going on TV. I was surprised before when I heard she was doing a public talk. Putting her face on international television is a whole ‘nuther deal! God protect her!