A faithful reader/commenter never misses a chance to let me know she has a very good friend who happens to be Muslim and that she is not a violent nor hating person what-so-ever. I have no doubt. After all, being Muslim and a woman begs one to be non-violent. Complacent even. Especially among her own as is our notion of her own.On the other hand, just who is she and what does she believe? There is Islam as religion, there is Islam as law. How do they meld? How do you pick and choose which parts you ascribe to? That being asked, this Wall Street Journal article from today's paper should be required reading for everyone asking the same question.
The commentary in the article is enlightening and for the most part forthcoming about one very definite issue. The "moderates" themselves must sort out among themselves just what the term "moderate" means then get on the world stage and explain it to the rest of us. Right now the entire western world is made up of those who doubt all of them. We cannot be blamed.
A couple of weeks before the 9/11 anniversary is of course an opportune time for these articles to be appearing, yet it is by no means enough. If we are to believe there is a moderate strain who abhors the violence as much as we do they need to become the squeaky wheel and have the courage to speak out.
As much as I found the WSJ article of interest, it gets far too little readership by the majority of skeptical westerners to make much of an impression.
You tell me you are out there. Tell me. Show me. Take action. That's all any of us ask.
6 comments:
While we're at it, we mustn't gloss over the violent texts in the Bible either. Those are the ones where "God" commands the Israelite people to kill every living thing in the land they wish to occupy. They are instructed to bash the heads of the babies against the city's walls to kill them.
We must remember our own violent pasts too.
Radical anything, Christian or Muslim are not moderate believers.
Peaceful Muslims who reject Sharia Law and violent Jihad are apostates (that means they're not really following Islam).
Old Testament historical accounts of conflicts are not understood by anybody to be commandments for future behavior - they are simply a story, a history, documentation.
Muslims understand Allah's instructions as applying to them today, and for all time.
Rather than comparing individuals, compare formal, documented religious doctrines.
Biblical accounts of war and conflicts between the nation of Israel and its enemies is a historical account - no Christian sect claims they are instructions for modern Christians.
In contrast, formal, MAINSTREAM (Sunni and Shia) Islamic doctrine interprets violent Quranic (and Hadith) verses as commandments for Muslims today, and for all time.
Ahmadi Muslims are a fringe sect like an Islamic version of Jehovah's witnesses that explicitly reject violence. They are being attacked as blasphemers in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and the UK.
Margie, there is no arguing the violent texts nor the actions of Christians past, present and I dare say probably future. However, it's not the texts of old that are the problem as much as the the way they are being interpreted and implemented today for the gain of the extremists.
Jhimmi, thanks for the input. You have certainly shed some light on the subject!
I would like to hear more comments along the lines that Jhimmi provided on this subject. Can anyone refute her point; I certainly cannot.
Post a Comment