Living Up To Ideals (Part Two)

Lester Spence asks these questions:

juliette i'm not that familiar with the qu'ran. could you give me a citation for your reference?

could you also tell me if this type of activity is a constant over the history of the region? if we go back to 1905 for example, would we see someone lynched then?

finally, could you tell me how lynching and mass terrorism against african americans was able to continue for a full 100 years, without reference to the judeo-christian ethic?

Are Muslims following the tenets of their religion or ignoring same?

Let's turn it around. During the heyday of white American terrorism of black Americans in the South, were white American Christians following the tenets of their religion or ignoring them? If the latter was true, it isn't too hard to figure it out how it could be so: the same way that present-day Christians ignore the tenets of their religion. You may be familiar with some of the "lesser" ways: lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, dishonoring ones parents, etc. Or even worse, twisting the tenets of their religion to suit their own purposes.

This last sort of behavior shouldn't have to be explained to anyone who steps out of his/her door in the morning. And failure to live up to one's professed standards or twisting those standards to self-serving purposes isn't a failing unique to those who are religious.

"The hearts of men are evil beyond measure."

It took men of Christian (and Jewish) faith, black men and others, to shame the bulk of white Americans into living up to the ideals they professed to revere and cherish, whether it was “love thy neighbor as thyself” or the idea spawned from that, “all Men are created equal.”

*****

Back to your first question: does it matter whether it started 35 years ago or three years ago? Here’s my point: there is nothing in Islamic doctrine that can be used to shame the Islamists to stop using terror to attempt to achieve their aims. No Dr. Malik Shakir will come out of the Mosque holding up Muhammad as the "Prince of Peace" who commanded believers to turn the other cheek or take the two-by-four out of his own eye first. Why not? This is why.

“Slay the infidels wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth [Islam], until they are subdued. (Surat At-Taubah 9:29)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. (Koran 2: 98)

Again, Muslims who who terrorize, lynch and burn are merely living up to their credo, not ignoring or going against it. That's why (besides fear of other Muslims) you haven't seen any Muslims in large numbers publicly repudiating terror. (There are one billion Muslims, right?)

As a wise person said, when someone tells you that they want to kill you, believe them.

Comments

[King of Fools]

I think you have made one major serious point here, Juliette!

[og]

Religion of peace. Yep.

[S-Train]

I been a defender of Minister Louis Farrakhan for awhile (I continue to do so). And while most people concentrate on his past "anti-semitism", many folks don't realize how ostricized he is from Muslims worldwide (especially Arab Muslims). At his recent Savior's Day 2004, Farrakhan repeatedly attack Arab Muslims for "wallowing in, ingusting, and fornicating in hate and passing it off as Islamic purity". He also said that the "culture of violence and false martyrdom is unbearable and intolerable in the Middle East".

This man has been treatened with hangings, beatings, and torture by Islamic extrememists and shunned by many Arab moderates. Now one thing that I know is that the Nation Of Islam has not committed any terrorists acts against the USA or abroad. Heck, even the FBI has talked with him about known terrorists.

This shows me that for all the hatred, whether just or unjust, he has endured here in America, that he, a black Muslim man, is hated more by folks in the religion he practices. Islamic extremism goes after everyone.

[wes jackson]

It may be a small point, but I don't believe

"It took a men of Christian (and Jewish) faith, black men and others, to shame the bulk of white Americans into living up to the ideals they professed to revere and cherish"
In any society at any time there will exist a "status quo" in the social fabric. I believe it took LEADERS to stand up and say 'this is not right'. Then the majority of folks, who agreed
in their hearts, spoke in one voice, "This shall be changed.'
Even after the LAWS were changed, you still had a Minority that disagreed, and would forever have acted against what was right, but the Majority would not stand for the bad behavior.
Over time, the majority MADE the minority go along, even when they would not go along without threat of severe punishment. The threat of Punishment to this day exists for those of any color or creed willing to step over the line.

WE have had a series of steps, starting with the Declaration, Then the civil war, (the majority in this country MADE the slaveholders free their slaves,) and Civil rights laws, to this day. I beleive the vast majority of whites in this country now see the blacks as equals and badly want real equality to exist. We will push, pull, shove, bend, fold, and mutilate......whatever it takes, until people of every color can look at a person of any other color and see the content of the soul, not the packet in which it resides.
I wish I could write better!

[Mike O]

If you research the "abolitionists", I think that you will find that they were by and large Christians who were living their faith.
From God's point of view there is only one race, the one He created, the human race. Christians who don't understand this need to do some serious self examination.

[Jeremy Pierce]

The Qur'an does have strictures for jihad that limit the use of force. First of all, the initial description of when they could do this was when being persecuted by infidels. After two months of peaceful discussion to try the win them over, they were allowed to defend themselves with force. Later in the Qur'an that was changed slightly, allowing more agressive conquering of nations in the name of spreading Islam, but it had to be declared by an Imam. There is no Imam today and cannot be, since no one can prove descent from Muhammad. So every jihad declared today is automatically illegitimate. Add to this the restriction on not harming women and children ever, and it's pretty clear that almost all of the terrorism that goes on today would not be allowed by the Qur'anic restrictions. The only kind that could be allowed would be those that harm no people and just property, and even that may require an Imam. I'm not clear on that.