 |
| Source: KUED |
It happens all the time. I peruse through social sites and find links that disparage Muslims. No other distinctions than "they're Muslims"--no limiting adjectives such as "radicalized" or "Islamic fundamentalist"--just "Muslims".
For instance, I recently came across a post from a conservative friend on FaceBook that screamed the headlines in all caps: "MUSLIMS NOW CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY"!
Before going to the link, I read the comments under the post. One man suggested we "deport them all". Keep in mind, these were not just conservatives spitting out venom, but Christians.
Whenever a headline takes on "National Enquirer" tones, I immediately dig a little deeper to see if I can discover the truth behind the facts.
Sure enough, within minutes I found it. The herd mentality so rampant in our country today grieves me. It's even sadder to find it alive and well in the politically conservative, Christian camps. They share information that validates their prejudices without further research. If an article inflames their fears, they won't stop to look into the possible motive of its author.
Here's what I found.
First, the man who's calling for the removal of the Statue of Liberty is none other than Anjem Choudary, a non-credentialed "cleric" who has been marginalized by his own people for years; yet, he is a frequent antagonist on Fox News.
If Choudary is a joke to his own people, why does Fox News like to have him on for provocative banter? That's easy. I spent over thirty years in broadcasting. In order to appear fair, you look for someone who will represent the other side of the story in the worst possible light.
You see it all the time on TV. The media will pick the most uneducated, dumpy looking Christian out of a pro-life rally to speak on behalf of the cause. They'll gravitate toward the loudest, brimstone throwing, country-bumpkin preacher to address strip clubs, gays, and a host of other perceived ills.
After becoming a Christian, I shared my testimony at an abortion awareness meeting. A local TV station covered the event. An abortion practitioner was among those scheduled to speak. Most people in attendance were decidedly pro-life; it was obvious by the signs they carried and the hearty applause that followed each pro-life speaker.
However, the clip shown on the late night news first featured my sound bite, then the doctor's. When he finished, it cut to a rousing round of applause from a standing crowd. The only problem is that the standing ovation came after I spoke, not the doctor.
You see? The reporter slyly got her point (and/or the unofficial company stance) across to thousands of impressionable viewers without using any words. Only the handful of people in attendance knew the difference.
Would you believe me if I told you this happens all the time? What if I told you conservative news outlets do it, too?
Ratings are at stake; and right now, the pulse of Americana is beating to a fast, conservative rhythm. The media is either benefiting from it or fighting against it (as in the pro-life example above). That's why I trust sources that are not agenda-driven by either conservative or liberal biases...non-politicized voices that have been consistently, courageously speaking the same message through America's mood swings.
But let's get back to Choudary. By the way, he's a London-based, self-proclaimed preacher. (Oops! I guess this ruins the commentator's suggestion on my friend's site for deportation.) Despite the impressive website of his newest escapade called "Shariah4America--featuring the White House with minarets and the Statue of Liberty wearing a veil--he's been largely ignored by journalists in Europe.
Mehdi Hasan, senior editor at the New Statesman, considers Choudary a "media whore". Adam Serwer has argued that Choudary is, for Fox, a "cartoonish buffoon who can be counted on to confirm every stereotype about Islam and Muslims."
In fact, in response to Choudary and others like him, a group arose across the pond called "The United Shades of Britain" to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims DO NOT support these radicals and their tirades.
When I first began to dig into Choudary's background and what other Muslims thought about him, I had to distressingly click past a handful of pages reporting the same story: "Muslims Want to Remove the Statue of Liberty".
I wonder if Christians would have been outraged if similar, generalized accusations had blasted across the globe after Westboro Baptist Church made the news:
For instance, I recently came across a post from a conservative friend on FaceBook that screamed the headlines in all caps: "MUSLIMS NOW CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY"!
Before going to the link, I read the comments under the post. One man suggested we "deport them all". Keep in mind, these were not just conservatives spitting out venom, but Christians.
Whenever a headline takes on "National Enquirer" tones, I immediately dig a little deeper to see if I can discover the truth behind the facts.
Sure enough, within minutes I found it. The herd mentality so rampant in our country today grieves me. It's even sadder to find it alive and well in the politically conservative, Christian camps. They share information that validates their prejudices without further research. If an article inflames their fears, they won't stop to look into the possible motive of its author.
Here's what I found.
First, the man who's calling for the removal of the Statue of Liberty is none other than Anjem Choudary, a non-credentialed "cleric" who has been marginalized by his own people for years; yet, he is a frequent antagonist on Fox News.
If Choudary is a joke to his own people, why does Fox News like to have him on for provocative banter? That's easy. I spent over thirty years in broadcasting. In order to appear fair, you look for someone who will represent the other side of the story in the worst possible light.
You see it all the time on TV. The media will pick the most uneducated, dumpy looking Christian out of a pro-life rally to speak on behalf of the cause. They'll gravitate toward the loudest, brimstone throwing, country-bumpkin preacher to address strip clubs, gays, and a host of other perceived ills.
After becoming a Christian, I shared my testimony at an abortion awareness meeting. A local TV station covered the event. An abortion practitioner was among those scheduled to speak. Most people in attendance were decidedly pro-life; it was obvious by the signs they carried and the hearty applause that followed each pro-life speaker.
However, the clip shown on the late night news first featured my sound bite, then the doctor's. When he finished, it cut to a rousing round of applause from a standing crowd. The only problem is that the standing ovation came after I spoke, not the doctor.
You see? The reporter slyly got her point (and/or the unofficial company stance) across to thousands of impressionable viewers without using any words. Only the handful of people in attendance knew the difference.
Would you believe me if I told you this happens all the time? What if I told you conservative news outlets do it, too?
Ratings are at stake; and right now, the pulse of Americana is beating to a fast, conservative rhythm. The media is either benefiting from it or fighting against it (as in the pro-life example above). That's why I trust sources that are not agenda-driven by either conservative or liberal biases...non-politicized voices that have been consistently, courageously speaking the same message through America's mood swings.
But let's get back to Choudary. By the way, he's a London-based, self-proclaimed preacher. (Oops! I guess this ruins the commentator's suggestion on my friend's site for deportation.) Despite the impressive website of his newest escapade called "Shariah4America--featuring the White House with minarets and the Statue of Liberty wearing a veil--he's been largely ignored by journalists in Europe.
Mehdi Hasan, senior editor at the New Statesman, considers Choudary a "media whore". Adam Serwer has argued that Choudary is, for Fox, a "cartoonish buffoon who can be counted on to confirm every stereotype about Islam and Muslims."
In fact, in response to Choudary and others like him, a group arose across the pond called "The United Shades of Britain" to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims DO NOT support these radicals and their tirades.
When I first began to dig into Choudary's background and what other Muslims thought about him, I had to distressingly click past a handful of pages reporting the same story: "Muslims Want to Remove the Statue of Liberty".
I wonder if Christians would have been outraged if similar, generalized accusations had blasted across the globe after Westboro Baptist Church made the news:
"Christians loudly protest all military funerals, claiming deaths
are God's judgment against homosexuality."
are God's judgment against homosexuality."
Imagine the frustration of passing through page after page of similar headlines, and each story you check only uses the noun "Christians". You anxiously scan for phrases such as "fringe elements", "not aligned with mainstream Christianity", "rejected by other Christians", and "not faithfully representing Christ's message", but to no avail.
And what if the Westboro image began to fuel anti-Christian sentiments across America? What if the liberal media saw their chance to "prove a point" about Christians in general, and began to take full advantage of such an image to the disregard of all others.
Perhaps many of you trust the former Muslims currently traveling the circuit as authors and speakers. They are immediate experts because, after all, they WERE Muslims; and their accounts of Islamic world conspiracies, Qur'anic commands to violence, and hatred of America is compelling.
Christian, let me ask, How long have you been a believer? Although I'm sure you read the Bible, pray daily, and attend church, do you consider yourself an "expert" in Christianity?
Can you address on the world stage the complex, theological variations of your faith from Genesis to Revelation? Can you streamline it in such a way that accurately represents all branches and offshoots of Christianity that have emerged since the first split in A.D. 1054?
I can't, even though I've been a Christian for forty-seven years. I'm afraid I would misrepresent some aspect with which I'm not familiar. More than likely, outsiders would not get the full picture.
I think I've amassed a lot of knowledge over the years, but not all of it--certainly not enough to be touted as an expert on the entire religion of Christianity. (Neither is any former Muslim regarding Islam!)
Let me caution you again, not only as a former media insider, but also as a former twenty-five year, well-entrenched conservative who knew how to use my media training to an advantage:
No doubt many of these former Muslims are sincere, but face it: they're riding a wave that makes their testimonies immensely relevant AND lucrative. Conservative publishers, organizations, and churches are scheduling speaking engagements and book signings. These men and women are being courted by conservative radio and TV outlets for interviews.
Do you get what I'm saying? If not, let me tell you a personal story.
My mother was interested in psychic phenomena; as a result, I grew up surrounded by the occult. Although she put away her tarot cards and Ouija board after a near-fatal illness, I continued to dabble with them (with her permission).
Years later, after my religious conversion, I hosted a talk show on a Christian radio station. During one program on witchcraft, I happened to mention being influenced by the paranormal as a child, which I believed led me to investigate the darker realms of the occult in my teen years.
Afterward, invitations to share my story started coming in from churches. At first, I was excited to make the rounds; but a few months later, I was turning down requests. Why?
I realized I was being used...maybe not consciously by most pastors, but in me, they had found a vehicle--an "expert"--to dole out all the gory details of the occult and scare their young people. I saw it more as enabling people's voyeuristic tendencies to peek into the forbidden without really going there.
Despite my insistence that my involvement was dabbling at best, and regardless of my downplaying the sensational, I was always asked these and other morbid questions from the audience:
Did you ever cast a spell or hex on someone?
And what if the Westboro image began to fuel anti-Christian sentiments across America? What if the liberal media saw their chance to "prove a point" about Christians in general, and began to take full advantage of such an image to the disregard of all others.
Perhaps many of you trust the former Muslims currently traveling the circuit as authors and speakers. They are immediate experts because, after all, they WERE Muslims; and their accounts of Islamic world conspiracies, Qur'anic commands to violence, and hatred of America is compelling.
Christian, let me ask, How long have you been a believer? Although I'm sure you read the Bible, pray daily, and attend church, do you consider yourself an "expert" in Christianity?
Can you address on the world stage the complex, theological variations of your faith from Genesis to Revelation? Can you streamline it in such a way that accurately represents all branches and offshoots of Christianity that have emerged since the first split in A.D. 1054?
I can't, even though I've been a Christian for forty-seven years. I'm afraid I would misrepresent some aspect with which I'm not familiar. More than likely, outsiders would not get the full picture.
I think I've amassed a lot of knowledge over the years, but not all of it--certainly not enough to be touted as an expert on the entire religion of Christianity. (Neither is any former Muslim regarding Islam!)
Let me caution you again, not only as a former media insider, but also as a former twenty-five year, well-entrenched conservative who knew how to use my media training to an advantage:
No doubt many of these former Muslims are sincere, but face it: they're riding a wave that makes their testimonies immensely relevant AND lucrative. Conservative publishers, organizations, and churches are scheduling speaking engagements and book signings. These men and women are being courted by conservative radio and TV outlets for interviews.
Do you get what I'm saying? If not, let me tell you a personal story.
My mother was interested in psychic phenomena; as a result, I grew up surrounded by the occult. Although she put away her tarot cards and Ouija board after a near-fatal illness, I continued to dabble with them (with her permission).
Years later, after my religious conversion, I hosted a talk show on a Christian radio station. During one program on witchcraft, I happened to mention being influenced by the paranormal as a child, which I believed led me to investigate the darker realms of the occult in my teen years.
Afterward, invitations to share my story started coming in from churches. At first, I was excited to make the rounds; but a few months later, I was turning down requests. Why?
I realized I was being used...maybe not consciously by most pastors, but in me, they had found a vehicle--an "expert"--to dole out all the gory details of the occult and scare their young people. I saw it more as enabling people's voyeuristic tendencies to peek into the forbidden without really going there.
Despite my insistence that my involvement was dabbling at best, and regardless of my downplaying the sensational, I was always asked these and other morbid questions from the audience:
Did you ever cast a spell or hex on someone?
Have you seen a demon? Have you ever conjured up a spirit?
Doesn't rock music and marijuana open doors to demonic possession?
Isn't Christian rock music a tool of the devil?
Did you ever participate in a pagan ritual? An orgy?
Satanists steal babies and sacrifice them on Halloween, right?
Did you ever drink human blood?
I gave them what they asked for, but nobody seemed interested in getting past the titillating to discuss how we as parents and members of the Christian community can more effectively address teenage insecurities and peer pressure. The topic "Exploring Relational Parenting" wasn't a hit, but "Signs of Demonic Possession" always drew a crowd.
Honestly, I only had to turn down a few more invitations. I guess word got around that I was a "dud"--not quite what they were looking for in terms of a spine-tingling, anti-occult speaker.
I can attest that the pressure to "perform" is intense--the temptation to give your audience what they want to hear. If you're already committed by contract to a publisher and traveling the circuit, your livelihood depends on it. If you rise suddenly from obscurity because you've got the right background at the right time, the money and notoriety starts rolling in. You gradually bring your message up a few notches to match the fervor of your unique audience who've been looking for someone to confirm their worst fears.
Here's another example of herd frenzy. The day after the article that gave the impression hordes of American Muslims were ready to rush onto Liberty Island and pull down the Statue of Liberty, I saw this going viral on my social sites: "SHARIA BECOMES LAW IN FLORIDA".
When I clicked on the website, I read this sub-heading:
"Despite our dire warnings and the precedents set in Europe, Islamic supremacists reached a milestone in their malevolent goal to eliminate and destroy America."
I was then instructed to follow another link. It led me to a site that "watches" Muslims.
The headline on the 'watch" link was not as inflammatory as the first one:
"Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law."
Still, I wanted to find a true report of what happened--one that would pass for honest journalism. Again, I had to comb through several pages because the story was flooding the internet. Here are some of the headlines I encountered in my search:
SHARIA LAW HAS COME TO FLORIDA!
I gave them what they asked for, but nobody seemed interested in getting past the titillating to discuss how we as parents and members of the Christian community can more effectively address teenage insecurities and peer pressure. The topic "Exploring Relational Parenting" wasn't a hit, but "Signs of Demonic Possession" always drew a crowd.
Honestly, I only had to turn down a few more invitations. I guess word got around that I was a "dud"--not quite what they were looking for in terms of a spine-tingling, anti-occult speaker.
I can attest that the pressure to "perform" is intense--the temptation to give your audience what they want to hear. If you're already committed by contract to a publisher and traveling the circuit, your livelihood depends on it. If you rise suddenly from obscurity because you've got the right background at the right time, the money and notoriety starts rolling in. You gradually bring your message up a few notches to match the fervor of your unique audience who've been looking for someone to confirm their worst fears.
Here's another example of herd frenzy. The day after the article that gave the impression hordes of American Muslims were ready to rush onto Liberty Island and pull down the Statue of Liberty, I saw this going viral on my social sites: "SHARIA BECOMES LAW IN FLORIDA".
When I clicked on the website, I read this sub-heading:
"Despite our dire warnings and the precedents set in Europe, Islamic supremacists reached a milestone in their malevolent goal to eliminate and destroy America."
I was then instructed to follow another link. It led me to a site that "watches" Muslims.
The headline on the 'watch" link was not as inflammatory as the first one:
"Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law."
Still, I wanted to find a true report of what happened--one that would pass for honest journalism. Again, I had to comb through several pages because the story was flooding the internet. Here are some of the headlines I encountered in my search:
SHARIA LAW HAS COME TO FLORIDA!
FLORIDA JUDGE ORDERS MUSLIMS TO FOLLOW SHARIA LAW!
JUDGE ORDERS USE OF SHARIA LAW IN FLORIDA!
Batten down the hatches and bar the door, Katy! Dear Lord, when did the Muslims take over Florida? All Floridians under Sharia Law? The rest of the nation can't be far behind!
Sadly, that's precisely the impression these "yellow press" writers wanted you to get; and many Americans (including Christians) fell for it.
It was difficult, but I finally picked out the facts from a few, unbiased sources embedded among the scaremongers:
JUDGE ORDERS USE OF SHARIA LAW IN FLORIDA!
Batten down the hatches and bar the door, Katy! Dear Lord, when did the Muslims take over Florida? All Floridians under Sharia Law? The rest of the nation can't be far behind!
Sadly, that's precisely the impression these "yellow press" writers wanted you to get; and many Americans (including Christians) fell for it.
It was difficult, but I finally picked out the facts from a few, unbiased sources embedded among the scaremongers:
A dispute arose recently in Tampa, Florida over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding. It was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002, and the dispute arose over who controls the $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.I finally located the actual ruling to gain a better understanding of the judge's decision: (Click to enlarge)
Former trustees of the mosque claimed they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders disputed that claim. The current mosque leaders wanted the case decided according to Florida civil law, but the former trustees wanted a settlement according to Sharia law.
The judge rendered in favor of letting these two parties arbitrate their particular case under Sharia. He only validated the legitimacy of seeking a Sharia solution in this case since it involved Muslims, their mosque, and their money!
Let's back up and look at the facts.
- Two Muslim groups in the Tampa area disputed ownership of mosque monies.
- One group preferred for the case to be decided by a civil judge, the other group appealed to Sharia Law.
- The judge ruled in favor of turning it back over to the litigants to seek a Sharia solution.
(In these circumstances, both parties must ultimately agree to submit to a Sharia court or the judge's decision cannot go forward. No one is being forced judicially in the U.S. to submit to Islamic law--not even Muslims!)
- Sharia Law WAS NOT imposed upon the rest of the population.
- This decision did not, nor will it ever apply to other disputes between non-Muslims.
I'm not an expert on Sharia, but I do know what the Bible says about Christians taking each other to civil court. I'm well aware that God's Word holds me to a higher standard of accountability for my conduct and is anchored in just restitution.
No doubt, the current owners of the domain knew they had a better chance to win the case under civil law because Sharia does not wink at the usurping of property or monies from a brother; it does not recognize many of the legal loopholes that exist in America's secular, contractual law. Sharia is not based on what is legal, but what is moral within Muslim business relationships.
You may ask, But how could the judge even allow a Sharia court to settle the matter? The idea of one existing in the U.S. is disturbing!
No doubt, the current owners of the domain knew they had a better chance to win the case under civil law because Sharia does not wink at the usurping of property or monies from a brother; it does not recognize many of the legal loopholes that exist in America's secular, contractual law. Sharia is not based on what is legal, but what is moral within Muslim business relationships.
You may ask, But how could the judge even allow a Sharia court to settle the matter? The idea of one existing in the U.S. is disturbing!
If these are your sentiments, then you need to know that Muslims in America have been practicing Sharia ever since they arrived on our shores. Sharia is a guide that addresses how the Muslim is to live before God and others. It lays out laws for personal purity and religious worship, followed by relational laws for commerce within Islam and without, and resulting punishments for disobedience.
Only recently have more secularized Muslims preferred having what was once kept within a private, religious court settled by the civil laws in their country of residence.
I'm the first to admit that Sharia is a complex set of laws whose precepts seem harsh and often abusive, much as the Old Testament Mosaic Law must appear to someone on the outside looking in. But are you aware that Jews have operated their own private, rabbinical courts for centuries--even here in America?
The court is called Beth din, "House of Judgment" (Other variations are bet din, beit din or beis din.) It is required or preferred among the stricter Jewish communities for the following cases:
Only recently have more secularized Muslims preferred having what was once kept within a private, religious court settled by the civil laws in their country of residence.
I'm the first to admit that Sharia is a complex set of laws whose precepts seem harsh and often abusive, much as the Old Testament Mosaic Law must appear to someone on the outside looking in. But are you aware that Jews have operated their own private, rabbinical courts for centuries--even here in America?
The court is called Beth din, "House of Judgment" (Other variations are bet din, beit din or beis din.) It is required or preferred among the stricter Jewish communities for the following cases:
- Validation of religious bills of divorce
- Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers
- Examination and control of the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish dietary laws
- Conversions to Judaism
- Supervising the building and maintenance of the ritual bath
- Determination of "personal status" (whether someone qualifies for legal identity as a Jew)
- The authorization and supervision of circumcisions
- Questions relating to burial practices and mournings
A beth din is also employed to resolve civil disputes between Jews using the Shulkan Arukh--a code of Jewish Law from the 16th century that includes laws of finance, financial responsibility, damages, and the rules of witnesses.
A Sharia court mirrors the structure and purpose of a beth din; that is, to settle disputes within the religious community with commandments that pre-date modern, secular codes.
I cannot over-stress that both Sharia courts and beth dins CANNOT trump the existing civil liberty laws of the country in which they are practiced!
Although abuses occur in all religious systems, from the pulpit to the private courts, forget what you've heard about stonings, floggings, amputations, and beheadings coming to America.
Americanized Muslims will never be allowed to decree such things from their courts (nor do they want to). Such punishments are carried out only in hard-line, Islamic states where there is no separation between religion and state. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the religion is the state and vice versa.
Conversely, if a beth din ever decreed a stoning (which was a prominent punishment required in the Old Testament), it would certainly be overruled by our judicial system.
Let me stress again, participation in these courts is voluntary and the decisions are not legally binding.
So, what did the judge really say in the Florida case? Go back and read it carefully!
The judge determined, obviously by testimony, that these Muslims had not exhausted all possibilities to first resolve their business conflict within Sharia.
Since the issue dealt with a mosque AND its money, he was encouraging the litigants to pursue it within the community that was to be affected the most--the people who built the mosque and were part of its congregation...those who sacrificed their finances for it!
Notice that he left the door open for a return to civil consideration; but it was his hope that the dispute could be settled privately.
Dear God! How many Christians wish for a judge with this kind of wisdom when it comes to government encroachments into church matters! Almost every day we hear of zoning laws forbidding Christians to hold Bible studies in their homes, and threats of legal action to censor the Christian's liberty to homeschool and publicly express the tenets and symbols of the faith.
Think this through. If the controversy had been between two Christian ministries instead, imagine the horror if a judge, representing the state, took church property and tithe money away from one group and gave it to another.
Religious organizations already have to get the government's permission to operate with non-profit privileges. In exchange for these tax breaks, they have to comply with increasingly restricting codes on federal, state, and local levels. We don't need to open more doors to government interference!
That's why even a private court of arbitration is commanded--yes, commanded--in the New Testament. I'm surprised that more Christians are not familiar with 1 Corinthians 6:1-6:
"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
"Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church.
"I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!"
The New Testament reveals that the use of a private, church court to settle disputes between Christians should be the norm, and scolds us for taking our cases to civil judges!
Non-believers who pick up a copy of the Bible struggle between reading about an Old Testament God who decrees strict dietary laws and stoning for certain crimes, and a New Testament Jesus who preaches peace and love. Since this article is not a defense of the Christian faith, I won't get into apologetics.
Suffice it to say, the history of God's interaction with man is progressive and relationally embedded. To lift out sound bites and excerpts for critique does injustice to such an ancient, sweeping faith that has been threaded through centuries of diverse civilizations.
However, Christians...have we not committed the same injustice with the Muslims and their scriptures?
Let me say right now that I do not personally believe that what is contained in the Qur'an is the revealed word of God. However, if most non-Christians find the Bible difficult to interpret and often take things of out context, then is it possible that non-Muslims are doing the same with the Qur'an--particularly if our motive is to bolster our bigotry?
Also, don't forget that Christianity has its fringe elements that bring dishonor to the Body of Christ. Their hate-filled interpretations do not represent the Bible or the people who cherish it. Whether it's Westboro Baptist, "Burn a Koran Day" pastors, an abortion clinic bomber, or a skinhead "white supremacist" who believes that the black race came from the mark of Cain, it's a challenge for Christians to separate themselves and the message of Christ from attention-seeking radicals.
Muslims in America are challenged, too. We'll see the convincing statistics later. For now, let's bring to light some important information about the Qur'an.
Mainline Christianity has raised a critical voice against some modern translations of the Bible that, in an attempt to be more socially relevant, have produced works that traditional scholars consider unfaithful to earlier texts.
For instance, look at Isaiah 7:14 in the King James Bible:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some of the other translations that use the word "virgin" are the Septuagint, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, and the Darby translation.
The word "woman" however, is used in other translations, including the Revised Standard Version (American), The New Jerusalem Bible, The Bible in Basic English, and the New English Bible.
This is a critical deviation, as the creeds of the Church for both Catholics and Protestants have unswervingly professed for over 1,800 years the virgin birth of Christ! Such textual corruptions seek to unravel the fabric of our faith as the divinity of Jesus Christ can be easily called into question by unsuspecting readers.
The Qur'an has been translated into other languages over the centuries and, like the Bible in regards to its original Hebrew and Greek, some works are more faithful than others to the complex Arabic language and its connotations.
Muslims believe since the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, it can only be presented without distortions and fully understood in Arabic. They consider translations into other languages inferior, for the sacred character of the Arabic original has been compromised. (Interestingly, this is a major point of contention with those who question the authenticity of the Bible in its modern form today!)
European Christians in the politicized, religious state were the first to attempt to translate the Qur'an out of Arabic.
In 1143, Peter the Vulnerable, abbot of Cluny, commissioned Robert of Ketton to produce the first Latin translation of the Qur'an in order to educate the Church about Islam, which he called a "detestable and damnable heresy". His version became required reading for preachers of the Crusades. Robert preferred translating scientific works rather than theological texts, but he finally succumbed to the abbot's pressure.
Experts in the Arabic language have since proven this medieval work flawed and full of exaggerations and distortions, but it remained the standard well into the 16th century. That was enough time, however, for the die to be cast that remains.
In 1543, three editions were republished with a forward by Christian Reformer Martin Luther. Luther is known for his virulent hurls against Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Protestant scholars today admit that Luther's knowledge of Islam at the time of these writings was second-hand.
All European translations of the Qur'an that followed were subsequently translated from Latin, not Arabic, including the questionable version by Catholic priest Ludovico Marracci. He asserted that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were similar to Luther and Protestantism--simply echoing Luther's bigotry in reverse.
We must note that none of the translators that followed Robert of Ketton were proficient in the Arab language or culture. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I, attempted the first English translation, but did so out of a previously existing French work. Reportedly, it was a language in which he was not well schooled.
The 1649 work was titled "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."
Today, one can find 22 translations on the internet. For an excellent, scholarly comparison of the various translations of the Qur'an throughout history, I recommend Khaleel Mohammed's article.
I have been following the work of Michael Ghouse, Muslim secularist, speaker, writer, and founder of American Together Foundation.
Ghouse cautions Americans that the most widely distributed translation of the Qur'an in the United States is a version that moderate Muslims have rejected as false.
It is called the Noble Qur'an, also known as the Hilali-Khan. It is given away free across the internet, at meetings, at rallies and on campuses, and it is the one usually sold in U.S. bookstores. As a result, it is also the version used by media and Christian critics of Islam in "proof text" fashion.
This version is funded and published by the Saudis. Not only have they poured millions into its publication in English, but they are also the ones craftily disseminating it across America!
Saudi Arabia remains the only country on the planet that enforces Sharia as the absolute law of the land. It has no constitution, no representative government, no freedom of the press, and no freedom of assembly. Churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia.
Eight-Five percent of Saudis are from the Sunni sect of Islam, which is characteristically dominated by a radical, Islamic fundamentalism known as Wahhabism. Its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, advocated purging Islam of "impurities".
(The remaining populace, mostly Shia Muslims, are subjugated, economically deprived, and treated as apostates.)
Therefore, many Americans remain puzzled as to the U.S.'s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Oil interests aside, no one in Washington seems concerned about our government's blatant hypocrisy to claim on one hand that we are concerned about human rights--even to the point of military intervention (Libya)--yet on the other hand appear eager to support an oppressive, Islamic regime.
Representative Peter King recently held hearings to investigate the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim Community while he and his pals in Congress continue to keep their longstanding relationship with the Saudis cozy.
The partnership remains strong, even after we learned that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Our government backed off investigating the backgrounds of the perpetrators when the Saudi government refused to cooperate.
"A Second Look at the Saudis" reports that The 9/11 Commission revealed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 plot, estimated that the vast majority (by his count 70%) of the recruits he saw being trained in Afghanistan were from Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Saad al-Faqih, considered a long-time Al Qaeda insider, collaborated that a full 80% of Al Qaeda’s members were Saudi nationals in an interview with the PBS news program Frontline.
The New York Times first reported on a poll of educated Saudi men between 25 and 41 years of age, taken by Saudi intelligence just weeks after September 11, in which 95% of the respondents indicated that they approved of Osama bin Laden and his agenda.
In virtually every major terrorist attack against the United States over the last twelve years, the men actually pulling the trigger at the end of the day have been Saudi Arabian.
Fifty-five percent of 400 foreign insurgents who died over a two-year period in Iraq were from Saudi Arabia.
Prof. Mohammed Hafez later conducted a similar review. He reported that of the 92 suicide bombers in Iraq, he was able to identify by name and nationality that 44 were Saudi Arabian.
Especially disconcerting is the fact that the vast majority of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq have been killed by Sunni insurgents, not the Shiites allegedly backed by Iran. For instance, ABC News has reported that more than 80% of the U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq during the month of October 2006 were killed in Sunni-controlled areas.
Despite this clear, damning evidence, our government recently struck a deal with the Saudis for $67 billion worth of weapons, including 84 F-15 jets, 70 Apache gunships, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, 36 light helicopters and thousands of laser-guided smart bombs – the largest weapons deal in U.S. history!
However, far more damaging that any military weapon is the religious bomb the fundamentalists are dropping over America in the form of the Hilali-Khan translation. In fact, the Saudis behind this translation are sending this absolutist model from their country into modern, pluralistic societies around the globe, hoping to incite peaceful, moderate Muslims to embrace a universal application of Wahhabism--an ideology foreign to earlier Islam.
Robert Hunt is presently Director of Global Theological Education at the Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, and teaches courses in World Religions, Inter-religious Dialogue, and Mission. In 1994, he received his PhD from the University of Malaya, focusing on Christian missions to and relationship with Muslims in Southeast Asia.
Hunt notes in his article "Is Islam a Political Ideology?"
They know the truth about the Hilali-Khan and its Saudi influence. Yes, some mentally disturbed, discontent, and disillusioned young Muslims will buy into the deception; but young people who often use religion or political injustices as a vehicle to act out their anger are not exclusive to Islam.
Michael Ghouse recommends Mohammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an. Asad was an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam. He was a well-respected writer, diplomat, political theorist, and scholar. Asad is considered one of the most influential European Muslims of the 20th century.
Because of Asad's knowledge of classical Arabic, his translation is considered by many to be the authoritative, English standard. However, due to Saudi influence, Asad's translation is often expensive and hard to find.
Notably, Asad has been criticized by Islamic fundamentalists for his Mu'tazili leanings. This school of philosophy advocates the use of reason and allegory (when applicable) to interpret the Qur'an.
Contrarily, adherents to the Saudi/Hilali-Khan insist on strict, consistent literalism when interpreting the Qur'an.
Look at these words from Jesus as recorded in Mark 9: 43-49:
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die and the fire is not quenched."
The majority of Christians know that Jesus is admonishing his followers to sever connections in this life to people, places, and things that habitually lead us to sin, even if they are intimately attached to us and deemed vital.
Muslim fundamentalists would take this verse literally. They would do the same with the New Testament references to "fight the good fight of faith", "put on the whole armor of God", and "share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ"...not to mention all the intense, imprecatory Psalms of David in the Old Testament regarding his enemies.
The Halali-Khan has many outspoken Muslim critics:
Khaleel Mohammed has taken the translation to task for "[reading] more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture," while Sheila Musaji complains that it "is shocking in its distortions of the message of the Qur’an and amounts to a rewrite not a translation."
Dr. Robert (Farooq) D. Crane states that it is "Perhaps the most extremist translation ever made of the Qur’an, and Khaled Abou El Fadl attacks what he calls "grotesque misogyny" in the translation.
The Hilali-Khan translation adds parenthetical comments into the text, and these added comments are the source of much of the controversy.
As an example, Khaleel Mohammed condemns the Hilali-Khan translation of the final two verses of the very first sura, Al Fatiha:
A Sharia court mirrors the structure and purpose of a beth din; that is, to settle disputes within the religious community with commandments that pre-date modern, secular codes.
I cannot over-stress that both Sharia courts and beth dins CANNOT trump the existing civil liberty laws of the country in which they are practiced!
Although abuses occur in all religious systems, from the pulpit to the private courts, forget what you've heard about stonings, floggings, amputations, and beheadings coming to America.
Americanized Muslims will never be allowed to decree such things from their courts (nor do they want to). Such punishments are carried out only in hard-line, Islamic states where there is no separation between religion and state. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, the religion is the state and vice versa.
Conversely, if a beth din ever decreed a stoning (which was a prominent punishment required in the Old Testament), it would certainly be overruled by our judicial system.
Let me stress again, participation in these courts is voluntary and the decisions are not legally binding.
So, what did the judge really say in the Florida case? Go back and read it carefully!
The judge determined, obviously by testimony, that these Muslims had not exhausted all possibilities to first resolve their business conflict within Sharia.
Since the issue dealt with a mosque AND its money, he was encouraging the litigants to pursue it within the community that was to be affected the most--the people who built the mosque and were part of its congregation...those who sacrificed their finances for it!
Notice that he left the door open for a return to civil consideration; but it was his hope that the dispute could be settled privately.
Dear God! How many Christians wish for a judge with this kind of wisdom when it comes to government encroachments into church matters! Almost every day we hear of zoning laws forbidding Christians to hold Bible studies in their homes, and threats of legal action to censor the Christian's liberty to homeschool and publicly express the tenets and symbols of the faith.
Think this through. If the controversy had been between two Christian ministries instead, imagine the horror if a judge, representing the state, took church property and tithe money away from one group and gave it to another.
Religious organizations already have to get the government's permission to operate with non-profit privileges. In exchange for these tax breaks, they have to comply with increasingly restricting codes on federal, state, and local levels. We don't need to open more doors to government interference!
That's why even a private court of arbitration is commanded--yes, commanded--in the New Testament. I'm surprised that more Christians are not familiar with 1 Corinthians 6:1-6:
"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
"Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church.
"I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!"
The New Testament reveals that the use of a private, church court to settle disputes between Christians should be the norm, and scolds us for taking our cases to civil judges!
Non-believers who pick up a copy of the Bible struggle between reading about an Old Testament God who decrees strict dietary laws and stoning for certain crimes, and a New Testament Jesus who preaches peace and love. Since this article is not a defense of the Christian faith, I won't get into apologetics.
Suffice it to say, the history of God's interaction with man is progressive and relationally embedded. To lift out sound bites and excerpts for critique does injustice to such an ancient, sweeping faith that has been threaded through centuries of diverse civilizations.
However, Christians...have we not committed the same injustice with the Muslims and their scriptures?
Let me say right now that I do not personally believe that what is contained in the Qur'an is the revealed word of God. However, if most non-Christians find the Bible difficult to interpret and often take things of out context, then is it possible that non-Muslims are doing the same with the Qur'an--particularly if our motive is to bolster our bigotry?
Also, don't forget that Christianity has its fringe elements that bring dishonor to the Body of Christ. Their hate-filled interpretations do not represent the Bible or the people who cherish it. Whether it's Westboro Baptist, "Burn a Koran Day" pastors, an abortion clinic bomber, or a skinhead "white supremacist" who believes that the black race came from the mark of Cain, it's a challenge for Christians to separate themselves and the message of Christ from attention-seeking radicals.
Muslims in America are challenged, too. We'll see the convincing statistics later. For now, let's bring to light some important information about the Qur'an.
Mainline Christianity has raised a critical voice against some modern translations of the Bible that, in an attempt to be more socially relevant, have produced works that traditional scholars consider unfaithful to earlier texts.
For instance, look at Isaiah 7:14 in the King James Bible:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some of the other translations that use the word "virgin" are the Septuagint, The New International Version, The American Standard Version, and the Darby translation.
The word "woman" however, is used in other translations, including the Revised Standard Version (American), The New Jerusalem Bible, The Bible in Basic English, and the New English Bible.
This is a critical deviation, as the creeds of the Church for both Catholics and Protestants have unswervingly professed for over 1,800 years the virgin birth of Christ! Such textual corruptions seek to unravel the fabric of our faith as the divinity of Jesus Christ can be easily called into question by unsuspecting readers.
The Qur'an has been translated into other languages over the centuries and, like the Bible in regards to its original Hebrew and Greek, some works are more faithful than others to the complex Arabic language and its connotations.
Muslims believe since the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, it can only be presented without distortions and fully understood in Arabic. They consider translations into other languages inferior, for the sacred character of the Arabic original has been compromised. (Interestingly, this is a major point of contention with those who question the authenticity of the Bible in its modern form today!)
European Christians in the politicized, religious state were the first to attempt to translate the Qur'an out of Arabic.
In 1143, Peter the Vulnerable, abbot of Cluny, commissioned Robert of Ketton to produce the first Latin translation of the Qur'an in order to educate the Church about Islam, which he called a "detestable and damnable heresy". His version became required reading for preachers of the Crusades. Robert preferred translating scientific works rather than theological texts, but he finally succumbed to the abbot's pressure.
Experts in the Arabic language have since proven this medieval work flawed and full of exaggerations and distortions, but it remained the standard well into the 16th century. That was enough time, however, for the die to be cast that remains.
In 1543, three editions were republished with a forward by Christian Reformer Martin Luther. Luther is known for his virulent hurls against Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Protestant scholars today admit that Luther's knowledge of Islam at the time of these writings was second-hand.
All European translations of the Qur'an that followed were subsequently translated from Latin, not Arabic, including the questionable version by Catholic priest Ludovico Marracci. He asserted that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were similar to Luther and Protestantism--simply echoing Luther's bigotry in reverse.
We must note that none of the translators that followed Robert of Ketton were proficient in the Arab language or culture. Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I, attempted the first English translation, but did so out of a previously existing French work. Reportedly, it was a language in which he was not well schooled.
The 1649 work was titled "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."
Today, one can find 22 translations on the internet. For an excellent, scholarly comparison of the various translations of the Qur'an throughout history, I recommend Khaleel Mohammed's article.
I have been following the work of Michael Ghouse, Muslim secularist, speaker, writer, and founder of American Together Foundation.
Ghouse cautions Americans that the most widely distributed translation of the Qur'an in the United States is a version that moderate Muslims have rejected as false.
It is called the Noble Qur'an, also known as the Hilali-Khan. It is given away free across the internet, at meetings, at rallies and on campuses, and it is the one usually sold in U.S. bookstores. As a result, it is also the version used by media and Christian critics of Islam in "proof text" fashion.
This version is funded and published by the Saudis. Not only have they poured millions into its publication in English, but they are also the ones craftily disseminating it across America!
Saudi Arabia remains the only country on the planet that enforces Sharia as the absolute law of the land. It has no constitution, no representative government, no freedom of the press, and no freedom of assembly. Churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia.
Eight-Five percent of Saudis are from the Sunni sect of Islam, which is characteristically dominated by a radical, Islamic fundamentalism known as Wahhabism. Its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, advocated purging Islam of "impurities".
(The remaining populace, mostly Shia Muslims, are subjugated, economically deprived, and treated as apostates.)
Therefore, many Americans remain puzzled as to the U.S.'s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Oil interests aside, no one in Washington seems concerned about our government's blatant hypocrisy to claim on one hand that we are concerned about human rights--even to the point of military intervention (Libya)--yet on the other hand appear eager to support an oppressive, Islamic regime.
Representative Peter King recently held hearings to investigate the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim Community while he and his pals in Congress continue to keep their longstanding relationship with the Saudis cozy.
The partnership remains strong, even after we learned that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Our government backed off investigating the backgrounds of the perpetrators when the Saudi government refused to cooperate.
"A Second Look at the Saudis" reports that The 9/11 Commission revealed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 plot, estimated that the vast majority (by his count 70%) of the recruits he saw being trained in Afghanistan were from Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Saad al-Faqih, considered a long-time Al Qaeda insider, collaborated that a full 80% of Al Qaeda’s members were Saudi nationals in an interview with the PBS news program Frontline.
The New York Times first reported on a poll of educated Saudi men between 25 and 41 years of age, taken by Saudi intelligence just weeks after September 11, in which 95% of the respondents indicated that they approved of Osama bin Laden and his agenda.
In virtually every major terrorist attack against the United States over the last twelve years, the men actually pulling the trigger at the end of the day have been Saudi Arabian.
Fifty-five percent of 400 foreign insurgents who died over a two-year period in Iraq were from Saudi Arabia.
Prof. Mohammed Hafez later conducted a similar review. He reported that of the 92 suicide bombers in Iraq, he was able to identify by name and nationality that 44 were Saudi Arabian.
Especially disconcerting is the fact that the vast majority of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq have been killed by Sunni insurgents, not the Shiites allegedly backed by Iran. For instance, ABC News has reported that more than 80% of the U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq during the month of October 2006 were killed in Sunni-controlled areas.
Despite this clear, damning evidence, our government recently struck a deal with the Saudis for $67 billion worth of weapons, including 84 F-15 jets, 70 Apache gunships, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, 36 light helicopters and thousands of laser-guided smart bombs – the largest weapons deal in U.S. history!
However, far more damaging that any military weapon is the religious bomb the fundamentalists are dropping over America in the form of the Hilali-Khan translation. In fact, the Saudis behind this translation are sending this absolutist model from their country into modern, pluralistic societies around the globe, hoping to incite peaceful, moderate Muslims to embrace a universal application of Wahhabism--an ideology foreign to earlier Islam.
Robert Hunt is presently Director of Global Theological Education at the Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, and teaches courses in World Religions, Inter-religious Dialogue, and Mission. In 1994, he received his PhD from the University of Malaya, focusing on Christian missions to and relationship with Muslims in Southeast Asia.
Hunt notes in his article "Is Islam a Political Ideology?"
"What we need to recognize is that modern Muslims do not agree on whether Islam should be considered an ideology, just as they do not agree on what constitutes and Islamic government or even whether there should be Islamic governments! Islam is a complex and multi-faceted religion, and realizing this is the first step to understanding the truth about Islam.America, please make the distinction between most and some; open your eyes and realize that American Muslims have readily embraced our Representative Republic, and are content to live and prosper in a pluralistic society while enjoying their freedom of worship.
I emphasize that Islam as an ideology was being debated because many Muslims didn’t feel that their religion was an ideology. They just didn’t think it played the same role in human society as democracy, or fascism, or Marxism.
And let me explain why. All these ideologies were based on the human observation of human behavior and social progress. They had nothing to do with Divine revelation. For many Muslims calling Islam an ideology was demeaning, as it would have been to call Christianity or Judaism ideologies. Religion, in their mind, was supposed to play a higher, more exalted role in human life than just a political and economic ideology.
Still, Muslim debates about Islam as an ideology set the stage for modern accusations that Islam is an ideology and not a religion, because you can certainly find Muslims who assert that it is an ideology, not “just” a religion.
It is easy to find books on Islamic government and Islamic economics and Islamic family theory and Islamic human rights theory, Islamic international law theory, and even Islamic theories of knowledge and science!
All of these are efforts by some Muslims to assert that in every aspect of modern society their religion is relevant. They want to assert that Muslims don’t need to borrow anything from the West. But are they the true representatives of Islam? Probably not.
For over a thousand years, Muslims didn’t think of Islam as anything other than a religion just like Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism. Yes, it informed all aspects of life – as did every other religion. But it also borrowed a lot.
Muslim governments were structured in ways borrowed from Greeks and Persians. Islamic theology, pursued by the falsafa or philosophers, borrowed heavily from Greek philosophical thinking. Indeed Islam preserved and transmitted to the West much of the Greek political and metaphysical philosophy that had been lost. A lot of supposedly Islamic law about government was simply ratifying existing forms of local government and translating Greek and Persian names into Arabic.
The last cohesive Muslim empire, the Ottomans, represented the most developed Islamic polity. But they didn’t control more than a fraction of the Muslim world at the time. And their empire ended officially in 1924.
In response to colonialism, and the imposition of what Muslims saw as Christian governments on Muslim lands from Morocco to Indonesia, Muslims in the 19th century began to ask if there wasn’t an Islamic alternative to Western political systems.
By the middle of the 20th century, Muslim intellectuals had fully realized that Western governments were not actually Christian governments. Rather, they were driven by a number of different political and economic ideologies that were also forcefully making their way into the Muslim world. These included democracy as an ideology, fascism, Marxism, communism, socialism, capitalism, and secularism.
Moreover, Muslims became aware of the concept of “secularism,” particularly in France where many Muslim scholars went in exile, or to study. They understood secularism to be the major ideology of the West, and that secularism excluded religion from any role in public life. This seemed to be directly opposed to the idea that religion should inform all of life, including political and economic structures.
Two reactions emerged. First, Muslims began to develop Islamic political and economic ideologies to compete with existing Western ideologies. Secondly, some Muslim scholars asserted that Islam itself should be seen as an ideology, and thus a direct competitor to these other ideologies. By the 1980’s this was a matter being debated intensely across the Muslim world."
They know the truth about the Hilali-Khan and its Saudi influence. Yes, some mentally disturbed, discontent, and disillusioned young Muslims will buy into the deception; but young people who often use religion or political injustices as a vehicle to act out their anger are not exclusive to Islam.
Michael Ghouse recommends Mohammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an. Asad was an Austrian Jew who converted to Islam. He was a well-respected writer, diplomat, political theorist, and scholar. Asad is considered one of the most influential European Muslims of the 20th century.
Because of Asad's knowledge of classical Arabic, his translation is considered by many to be the authoritative, English standard. However, due to Saudi influence, Asad's translation is often expensive and hard to find.
Notably, Asad has been criticized by Islamic fundamentalists for his Mu'tazili leanings. This school of philosophy advocates the use of reason and allegory (when applicable) to interpret the Qur'an.
Contrarily, adherents to the Saudi/Hilali-Khan insist on strict, consistent literalism when interpreting the Qur'an.
Look at these words from Jesus as recorded in Mark 9: 43-49:
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where the worms that eat them do not die and the fire is not quenched."
The majority of Christians know that Jesus is admonishing his followers to sever connections in this life to people, places, and things that habitually lead us to sin, even if they are intimately attached to us and deemed vital.
Muslim fundamentalists would take this verse literally. They would do the same with the New Testament references to "fight the good fight of faith", "put on the whole armor of God", and "share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ"...not to mention all the intense, imprecatory Psalms of David in the Old Testament regarding his enemies.
The Halali-Khan has many outspoken Muslim critics:
Khaleel Mohammed has taken the translation to task for "[reading] more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture," while Sheila Musaji complains that it "is shocking in its distortions of the message of the Qur’an and amounts to a rewrite not a translation."
Dr. Robert (Farooq) D. Crane states that it is "Perhaps the most extremist translation ever made of the Qur’an, and Khaled Abou El Fadl attacks what he calls "grotesque misogyny" in the translation.
The Hilali-Khan translation adds parenthetical comments into the text, and these added comments are the source of much of the controversy.
As an example, Khaleel Mohammed condemns the Hilali-Khan translation of the final two verses of the very first sura, Al Fatiha:
6 Guide us to the Straight Way
7 The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
These lines have drawn criticism, since mention of Jews and Christians is not present in the original Arabic; though there is a hadith in which Muhammad (ca. 570/571 – June 8, 632) is said to have made these connections; however, the hadiths were collected in the 8th and 9th centuries to fill in the details of the Prophets life.
This same problem convoluted Judaism. The early Sacred Text for Jews was the Torah (first five book of the Bible); but later the Talmud (Oral Law), a collection of Rabbinic interpretations and perspectives, became just as authoritative and binding on the people as the Torah...and in many ways, trumped it.
Jesus denounced the Pharisees, the purveyors of the Oral Law, for these perversions: "You are destroying the word of God through your rules that you have handed down. And you do many other things like that." (Mark 7:13)
This is similar to mainstream Christians rejecting what is known as the Gnostic gospels, written between the 2nd and 4th centuries--hundreds of years after Christ's Ascension. They were examined and repeatedly rejected as not being faithful to the teachings of Jesus and His original Apostles by a consensus of the early church.
These earlier Gnostics claimed to have had exclusive, divine revelations of the real life of Jesus, and accused mainstream Christianity of deliberate conspiracies to cover up the truth for political gain.
Gnostic sects teach that God reveals Himself and higher knowledge to only certain, worthy individuals. In their writings, they assert that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, and she was the "Holy Grail"--the true, eternal Mother Goddess and Head of the church--cruelly usurped from her role by a hierarchy of men.
Their descendants have supposedly been some of the world's most gifted, but misunderstood geniuses, visionaries, and humanitarians. These man-crafted, gnostic heresies continue to confuse many people today about the life of Christ, his divinity, and redemptive mission. (The DaVinci Code has helped these once-obscured "gospels" regain popularity.)
Similar myths are unfortunately shaping how Americans feel about Muslims and sadly fueling their fears.
By the way, I wonder which version of the Qur'an pastor Terry Jones' church, Christian Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned in public. (The name of the church is dismally ironic.)
It would be interesting to know if the version submitted as conclusive evidence in their "court" (and subsequently "condemned") is one that the majority of American Muslims have been summarily rejecting for years. That would make the whole spectacle pointless, wouldn't it?
But tell that to the families of the 12-plus foreigners that lost their lives in a demonstration against the burning in Afghanistan. At the time of this writing, protests over this sordid event continue to increase worldwide, so the full damage has yet to be assessed.
Local Afghanis claim the protest at the U.N. compound was peaceful until "security force" elements, which many believe to be al Qaeda plants, stirred up the crowd and began shooting. Additional reports claim fundamentalist Mullahs (clerics) also instigated the violence. (al-Qaeda never misses an opportunity to take advantage of Western ignorance and arrogance).
Am I defending the murderous mob? Absolutely not! But in setting aside the protesters' freedom of expression, I tell you that murdering people because someone burns one copy of one translation of a book you REVERE is ludicrous. It's just as asinine as staging an amateur production of Fahrenheit 451 to burn a book you DON'T hold sacred!
Now Jones claims the violence "proves his point" about Islam. NO! It proves a few suspected operatives used the heated situation to their advantage to spread further propaganda. But, now wait. Isn't that what you're also doing, Reverend?
Do Muslim radicals in the Mideast think Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation represent all American Christians? I hope not; yet, thanks to Pastor Jones and those of his ilk, we may have a lot of explaining to do.
Let's tackle another lie--"Muslims are taking over America"!
Robert Hunt provides some compelling information and data that sets us straight:
That, too, is a lie. Look at these charts from the FBI:
This same problem convoluted Judaism. The early Sacred Text for Jews was the Torah (first five book of the Bible); but later the Talmud (Oral Law), a collection of Rabbinic interpretations and perspectives, became just as authoritative and binding on the people as the Torah...and in many ways, trumped it.
Jesus denounced the Pharisees, the purveyors of the Oral Law, for these perversions: "You are destroying the word of God through your rules that you have handed down. And you do many other things like that." (Mark 7:13)
This is similar to mainstream Christians rejecting what is known as the Gnostic gospels, written between the 2nd and 4th centuries--hundreds of years after Christ's Ascension. They were examined and repeatedly rejected as not being faithful to the teachings of Jesus and His original Apostles by a consensus of the early church.
These earlier Gnostics claimed to have had exclusive, divine revelations of the real life of Jesus, and accused mainstream Christianity of deliberate conspiracies to cover up the truth for political gain.
Gnostic sects teach that God reveals Himself and higher knowledge to only certain, worthy individuals. In their writings, they assert that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, and she was the "Holy Grail"--the true, eternal Mother Goddess and Head of the church--cruelly usurped from her role by a hierarchy of men.
Their descendants have supposedly been some of the world's most gifted, but misunderstood geniuses, visionaries, and humanitarians. These man-crafted, gnostic heresies continue to confuse many people today about the life of Christ, his divinity, and redemptive mission. (The DaVinci Code has helped these once-obscured "gospels" regain popularity.)
Similar myths are unfortunately shaping how Americans feel about Muslims and sadly fueling their fears.
By the way, I wonder which version of the Qur'an pastor Terry Jones' church, Christian Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned in public. (The name of the church is dismally ironic.)
It would be interesting to know if the version submitted as conclusive evidence in their "court" (and subsequently "condemned") is one that the majority of American Muslims have been summarily rejecting for years. That would make the whole spectacle pointless, wouldn't it?
But tell that to the families of the 12-plus foreigners that lost their lives in a demonstration against the burning in Afghanistan. At the time of this writing, protests over this sordid event continue to increase worldwide, so the full damage has yet to be assessed.
Local Afghanis claim the protest at the U.N. compound was peaceful until "security force" elements, which many believe to be al Qaeda plants, stirred up the crowd and began shooting. Additional reports claim fundamentalist Mullahs (clerics) also instigated the violence. (al-Qaeda never misses an opportunity to take advantage of Western ignorance and arrogance).
Am I defending the murderous mob? Absolutely not! But in setting aside the protesters' freedom of expression, I tell you that murdering people because someone burns one copy of one translation of a book you REVERE is ludicrous. It's just as asinine as staging an amateur production of Fahrenheit 451 to burn a book you DON'T hold sacred!
Now Jones claims the violence "proves his point" about Islam. NO! It proves a few suspected operatives used the heated situation to their advantage to spread further propaganda. But, now wait. Isn't that what you're also doing, Reverend?
Do Muslim radicals in the Mideast think Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation represent all American Christians? I hope not; yet, thanks to Pastor Jones and those of his ilk, we may have a lot of explaining to do.
Let's tackle another lie--"Muslims are taking over America"!
Robert Hunt provides some compelling information and data that sets us straight:
"Recently I’ve received quite a few emails citing a review of a book by Nonie Darwish entitled "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.” The review states (apparently from the book) that “In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Britain to elect the President by themselves!Have you also heard that all (or most) terrorists are Muslim?
Rest assured they will do so… You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. Is one… And there are others…Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims.”
In one form or another this assertion has been made by Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others. So perhaps we should look at the evidence.
First – cities taken over in Britain? Name one. Yes, Birmingham England has a Muslim major. How does that constitute a takeover. His city council isn’t Muslim. The laws that govern the city are not Islamic.
And is there another city with a Muslim Major? Not that I know. What about Dearborn living under Islamic law? Well a quick directory check shows dozens of liquor stores – and the sale of alcohol is forbidden in Islam.
Anecdotal I know, but strongly suggestive that Dearborn isn’t under Muslim control. (Birmingham is pretty well stocked with liquor stores and pubs as well – by the way) So part two of this assertion is false.
The most recent, and only neutral, study of American religious affiliation is found at: The Pew Charitable Trust Survey: http://religions.pewforum.org/report . It states that the total population U.S. Muslims is likely to be less than 1% of the population.
A larger figure is given by Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American Islamic Relations and is cited at (http://pluralism.org/resources/statistics/tradition.php#Islam) It dates from 1998 and is hardly trustworthy, as no source is given. The current population of the United States is just over 305 million.
For Muslims to have a significant impact on elections they would need to have far more than 1% or 2 % of the population, and there is absolutely no evidence that this will happen.
What about immigration and conversion? We need to remember that far more Christians migrate to the U.S. from Christian Latin America than Muslims do from other parts of the world. And conversion works both ways.
Unfortunately, we don’t have accurate reports on conversion either way, but my observation of local mosques suggests that there are no more than handfuls of converts to Islam in Dallas each year.
Let’s do the math. Let’s assume that in every 20-year generation the Muslim population doubles. That would make it 4% in 20 years if no other group grew at all. Hardly electoral dominance even if it were true. And it isn’t. So fact two is also false.
So, when you read things by authors like Darwish, Spencer, Gabriel, and other fear mongers, then turn up the B.S. detector, because mostly that is what they have on offer. And yes, I mean that about their other assertions as well.
Not grounded in fact, but the desire create fear. A recognizable political tactic."
That, too, is a lie. Look at these charts from the FBI:
 | ||
| Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005 |
 |
Despite a report showing that 40% of all extremist plots in the U.S. were thwarted with Muslim help, many people still believe the Muslim community in America is largely uncooperative with authorities, and secretly supportive of radicals.
Who are our Muslim neighbors in America? Before we look at their profiles, I must ask: Do you know a Muslim?
I don't mean the guy at the end of the block that you pass everyday on your way to work. Do you converse with any Muslims--on the job, at school or while serving in community projects? Do you have any Muslim friends?
Here is why I ask: Although 42% of Americans admit they don't even know a Muslim, polls report that 39% of them think Muslims aren't loyal to the U.S. The same percentage want them to have a Special ID. How can a person, especially a Christian, make these generalized judgments against a group of people they don't really know?
Are you aware that 63% of Arab Americans are Christians?
Muslims are not necessarily Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. A Muslim is a person whose religion is Islam, while the term Arab refers to ethnicity. Only 24% of Arabs in this country are Muslims.
I wonder though, how many Americans--gauging only by appearances and names--assume their Arab neighbors are Muslims?
For instance, according to a 2007 Pew Forum survey, only 38 percent of American Muslim women wear the hijab (traditional head covering) at all times when out in public. Another 13 percent wear it most or some of the time. Others fashion a scarf on occasion or go completely without a hijab.
American Muslims believe that when coming to the U.S., one should try and adopt American customs, rather than trying to remain distinct from the larger society. And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.
Roughly two-thirds (65%) of adult Muslims in the U.S. were born elsewhere. A relatively large proportion of Muslim immigrants are from Arab countries, but many also come from Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Among native-born Muslims, roughly half are African American (20% of U.S. Muslims overall), many of whom are converts to Islam.
Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others.
Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified.
Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.
Sixty-five percent of Muslim Americans are first-generation immigrants, and 61 percent of the foreign-born arrived in the 1990s or this decade.
Seventy-seven percent of Muslims living in the United States are citizens, with 65 percent of the foreign-born being naturalized citizens.
As a point of comparison, 58 percent of foreign-born Chinese living in the United States are naturalized citizens. Just over two in five (43.7 percent) of Hispanic immigrants in the United States in 2009 were naturalized US citizens.)
South Asians constitute the fastest-growing Muslim community, perhaps accounting for a quarter of all Muslim Americans. The Muslim population of the United States also includes Turks, Iranians, Bosnians, Malays, Indonesians, Nigerians, Somalis, Liberians, Kenyans, and Senegalese, among others. In addition, there is a small but growing population of white and Hispanic converts, many of them women who have married Muslim men.
Immigrant Muslims are slightly more affluent and better educated than native-born Muslims. Twenty-four percent of all Muslims and 29 percent of immigrant Muslims have college degrees, compared to 25 percent for the U.S. general population.
Forty-one percent of all Muslim Americans and 45 percent of immigrant Muslims report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher. This compares to the national average of 44 percent. Immigrant Muslims are well represented among higher-income earners, with 19 percent claiming annual household incomes of $100,000 or higher (compared to 16 percent for the Muslim population as a whole and 17 percent for the U.S. average).
Forty-three percent of Muslim-American women hold a college or postgraduate degree, compared with 29 percent of US women overall. They are as likely as Muslim men to hold professional jobs. (The group shows strong employment rates, including 30 percent in professional work and 25 percent self-employed).
The Muslim community includes by far the highest proportion of young adults (18 to 29 years), with 36 percent in that category, compared with 9 percent of Protestants, 17 percent of Catholics, 23 percent of Mormons, 16 percent of Jews, and 18 percent of the US population.
Thirty-eight percent describe themselves as moderate, with 29 percent saying they are liberal and 25 percent conservative.
Muslims are the most racially diverse religious group in the US: thirty-five percent identify as African-American, 28 percent as white, 18 percent as Asian, and 1 percent as Hispanic. Other religious groups surveyed are from 76 percent to 93 percent "white".
In 2001, an estimated 79 percent of Muslims were registered to vote, and 85 percent of those say they vote regularly, according to a poll taken on behalf of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
Muslims share many of the same concerns as Christians: they are pro-family, pro-life, and fiscally conservative. That's why an estimated 65-80% of Muslim Americans voted for Bush in 2000 (exit polls vary). During his campaign, Bush courted their votes and a leading Muslim organization endorsed him.
However, that dramatically changed in the 2004 elections, when over 90% of Muslim American voters choose Democrat candidate John Kerry for President. It was the largest turnout of American Muslims in U.S. history, with a 20 percent voter registration increase over previous presidential elections.
According to one post-election survey, 21 percent of American Muslims voting in the 2004 election were first-time voters. This is consistent with data collected by University of Maryland researcher James Gimpel and others.
What accounts for the dramatic shift? American Muslims were troubled over Bush's ill-informed invasion into Iraq (Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 perpetrators came from Saudi Arabia). They were also concerned about Gitmo policies, and the increasing misinformation and persecution against Muslims in America.
(An article from 2006 by the Seton Hall University School of Law that draws solely on official Pentagon documents reports: "Only 8 percent of the detainees (at Guantanamo) were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.")
So again, despite differences on such important issues as marriage and abortion, nearly 90% of the Muslim vote in 2008 went to Obama, who had promised an end to the overseas wars, a closing of Gitmo, and financial reforms.
Interestingly, 95 percent of Muslims polled cast a ballot in the 2008 presidential election—and first-time voters jumped another 14 percent from 2004.
While many Americans still believe the 9/11 events and all subsequent plots against our country were due to Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of our freedoms, the statistics simply do not back up those assertions. Don Emmerich reports:
After compiling a database of every suicide terrorist attack since 1980, the University of Chicago's Robert Pape concluded:
After compiling a database of every suicide terrorist attack since 1980, the University of Chicago's Robert Pape concluded:
“What over 95% of suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common since 1980 is not religion but a specific strategic objective: to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists consider to be their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon to Chechnya to the West Bank to Sri Lanka to Kashmir and to Iraq and Afghanistan today, suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign military occupation.”
According to Pape’s database, the world’s “five largest Islamic fundamentalist populations without American military presence have produced al-Qaeda suicide terrorists on the order of 1 per 71 million people, while the Persian Gulf countries with American military presence have produced al-Qaeda suicide terrorists at a rate of 1 per million, or 70 times more often.”
"Since 9/11, America has drastically increased its terrorism against Muslims living overseas, thus fueling an increase in anti-American Islamic terrorism. Despite this, the number of terrorist attacks committed by Muslim-Americans is still relatively low.
Last year, for instance, 10 Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks; of them, just one, Faisal Shahzad (aka the Times Square Bomber) actually carried out his plot, which failed. Last year, one Muslim-American attempted an act of terrorism on US soil. One. One attempt, zero deaths (Duke).
"By contrast, 20 non-Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks last year, including right-wing suicide terrorist Joseph Stack, who flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and an innocent bystander, a father and grandfather named Vernon Hunter.
Richard Cohen points out that, “when measured against ordinary violent crime,” the threat of Muslim-American terrorism “is slight” and that “the threat from non-Muslims is much greater” (Washington Post).
In spite of these and other statistics that point to a clearer truth, many of us will choose to hang on to our clouded bigotries that lie. We naturally feel safer when we can insulate ourselves against others we deem suspiciously 'different'. But what happens when fear compels us to look to the government for discriminatory measures?
It's easier to pass one-size-fits-all laws against a collective. It takes the burden off us as individuals to build relationships within a diverse society and work for the betterment of people we don't like--people we really don't want to see happily settle in and prosper. My dad felt that way about Blacks in our small, Southern town. Twenty years ago, I heard it again when the Hispanic population in our Carolina region was burgeoning due to a construction boon.
"But Mary, Blacks and Hispanics never attacked us like the Muslims did in 9/11"!
Okay, let's go back to 1942 after the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR's Executive Order 9066 authorized the formation of military areas called "exclusion zones", which forbid all people of Japanese ancestry from living freely along the Pacific Coast.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the order; but have they always been right? Back in 1857, the Court also determined that Black people--imported to the U.S. and held as slaves (along with their descendants)--were not citizens and thereby deemed chattel (property).
Although the government denied it for many years, it was finally proven in 2007 that the U.S. Census Bureau assisted in the roundup of Japanese Americans by providing what was supposed to be confidential information to the enforcers.
The road to internment was paved progressively. First, the military zones were designated, and the Japanese living in them were located and monitored.
Next, their assets were frozen. Some people were able to move out of the zones when the order was first issued, but others remained due to financial hardships, illness, or family commitments.
A curfew for those of Japanese ancestry was then set in the zones from 8 PM to 6 AM.
A travel ban soon followed, forbidding the Japanese from leaving the zones.
Finally, Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was issued on May 3, 1942, ordering all people of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers, where they would live until being moved to permanent "Relocation Centers".
Approximately 120,000 people were interned. Of these, 62% were American citizens and HALF were minors! Individuals with as little as 1/16 Japanese blood were interned, including Korean Americans.
Camps were primarily located throughout the pacific and western regions of the U.S. Hastily built, some of the frame barracks were covered only with tar paper and had no plumbing or cooking facilities. Three generations often lived in a single bare room, 20 by 24 feet, which comprised a "family apartment." It was not unusual for two or three families to crowd into such a single room.
Internees had to pack quickly and take only what they could carry. Small items boxed and placed into government storage were rarely retrieved due to theft and damage. The citizens who owned homes, land, and businesses had to abandon them.
Historians record a disturbing prejudice in America that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor. A wave of Japanese immigrants flooded into California in the early 20th century and settled there to work the land. The labor and farm competition fueled anti-Japanese sentiment that led schools to segregate "Mongolians" (ethnicities of East Asian ancestry) from Caucasians.
Last year, for instance, 10 Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks; of them, just one, Faisal Shahzad (aka the Times Square Bomber) actually carried out his plot, which failed. Last year, one Muslim-American attempted an act of terrorism on US soil. One. One attempt, zero deaths (Duke).
"By contrast, 20 non-Muslim-Americans were suspected of planning domestic terrorist attacks last year, including right-wing suicide terrorist Joseph Stack, who flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and an innocent bystander, a father and grandfather named Vernon Hunter.
Richard Cohen points out that, “when measured against ordinary violent crime,” the threat of Muslim-American terrorism “is slight” and that “the threat from non-Muslims is much greater” (Washington Post).
In spite of these and other statistics that point to a clearer truth, many of us will choose to hang on to our clouded bigotries that lie. We naturally feel safer when we can insulate ourselves against others we deem suspiciously 'different'. But what happens when fear compels us to look to the government for discriminatory measures?
It's easier to pass one-size-fits-all laws against a collective. It takes the burden off us as individuals to build relationships within a diverse society and work for the betterment of people we don't like--people we really don't want to see happily settle in and prosper. My dad felt that way about Blacks in our small, Southern town. Twenty years ago, I heard it again when the Hispanic population in our Carolina region was burgeoning due to a construction boon.
"But Mary, Blacks and Hispanics never attacked us like the Muslims did in 9/11"!
Okay, let's go back to 1942 after the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR's Executive Order 9066 authorized the formation of military areas called "exclusion zones", which forbid all people of Japanese ancestry from living freely along the Pacific Coast.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the order; but have they always been right? Back in 1857, the Court also determined that Black people--imported to the U.S. and held as slaves (along with their descendants)--were not citizens and thereby deemed chattel (property).
Although the government denied it for many years, it was finally proven in 2007 that the U.S. Census Bureau assisted in the roundup of Japanese Americans by providing what was supposed to be confidential information to the enforcers.
The road to internment was paved progressively. First, the military zones were designated, and the Japanese living in them were located and monitored.
Next, their assets were frozen. Some people were able to move out of the zones when the order was first issued, but others remained due to financial hardships, illness, or family commitments.
A curfew for those of Japanese ancestry was then set in the zones from 8 PM to 6 AM.
A travel ban soon followed, forbidding the Japanese from leaving the zones.
Finally, Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was issued on May 3, 1942, ordering all people of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers, where they would live until being moved to permanent "Relocation Centers".
Approximately 120,000 people were interned. Of these, 62% were American citizens and HALF were minors! Individuals with as little as 1/16 Japanese blood were interned, including Korean Americans.
Camps were primarily located throughout the pacific and western regions of the U.S. Hastily built, some of the frame barracks were covered only with tar paper and had no plumbing or cooking facilities. Three generations often lived in a single bare room, 20 by 24 feet, which comprised a "family apartment." It was not unusual for two or three families to crowd into such a single room.
Internees had to pack quickly and take only what they could carry. Small items boxed and placed into government storage were rarely retrieved due to theft and damage. The citizens who owned homes, land, and businesses had to abandon them.
Historians record a disturbing prejudice in America that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor. A wave of Japanese immigrants flooded into California in the early 20th century and settled there to work the land. The labor and farm competition fueled anti-Japanese sentiment that led schools to segregate "Mongolians" (ethnicities of East Asian ancestry) from Caucasians.
Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt administered the internment program. In part of his testimony before Congress, he said:
"I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map." (refer to footnote 2 in the link)
White farmers in California did not hide their racism. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:
"We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over... If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we'd never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either." (refer to footnote 12 in link)
During this time, even the media outlets cast off their commitment to journalistic ideals and stirred up suspicions and hatred. In fact, the first public call to intern the Japanese came from John B. Hughes, a prominent radio commentator for the Mutual Broadcasting Company. Along the same time, Henry McLemore, syndicated columnist for Hearst newspapers, wrote:
"I am for the immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior. I don't mean a nice part of the interior either. Herd 'em up, pack 'em off and give 'em the inside room in the badlands... Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them."
A Los Angeles Times Editorial trumpeted:
"A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched... So, a Japanese American born of Japanese parents, nurtured upon Japanese traditions, living in a transplanted Japanese atmosphere... notwithstanding his nominal brand of accidental citizenship almost inevitably and with the rarest exceptions grows up to be a Japanese, and not an American... Thus, while it might cause injustice to a few to treat them all as potential enemies, I cannot escape the conclusion... that such treatment... should be accorded to each and all of them while we are at war with their race."
Government officials on all levels were also joining in the anti-Japanese fervor. Reform Mayor of Los Angeles, Fletcher Bowron, "denounced the 'sick mentality' of those who worried about injustices to the Japanese living in the United States. He exclaimed:
"If Abraham Lincoln were alive, he would round up the people born on American soil who have secret loyalty to the Japanese Emperor."
"There isn't a shadow of a doubt," proclaimed Bowron, "but that Lincoln, the mild-mannered man whose memory we regard with almost saint-like reverence, would make short work of rounding up the Japanese and putting them where they could do no harm."
(Yes, Mr. Bowron--you're right. Your Messianic President abolished Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. He tossed 30,000 civilians without due process of law into prisons for criticizing his administration, and suppressed hundreds of newspapers that did not support his war effort.)
Read one of my articles about Honest Abe's REAL legacy.
In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, admitting the government's actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". They also approved more than $1.6 billion in reparations to internment survivors.
The fear experienced by Americans then is far more understandable than the racial prejudice, war hysteria, and leadership failure resurfacing toward a new 'enemy' today!
The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were frequently compared to the strikes on Pearl Harbor. However, we must never forget the distinguishing difference: On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by another NATION that subsequently declared war.
On September 11, 2001, the attacks in our country were carried out by a rouge group of terrorists of a particular race and religion, based out of a certain country. In other words, War was NOT formally declared upon us by another race, religion, or nation!
Read one of my articles about Honest Abe's REAL legacy.
In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, admitting the government's actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". They also approved more than $1.6 billion in reparations to internment survivors.
The fear experienced by Americans then is far more understandable than the racial prejudice, war hysteria, and leadership failure resurfacing toward a new 'enemy' today!
The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were frequently compared to the strikes on Pearl Harbor. However, we must never forget the distinguishing difference: On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by another NATION that subsequently declared war.
On September 11, 2001, the attacks in our country were carried out by a rouge group of terrorists of a particular race and religion, based out of a certain country. In other words, War was NOT formally declared upon us by another race, religion, or nation!
Nevertheless, we have erroneously announced a "War on Terror", when terror is nothing but a tactic--not a nation, race, or religion.
Terror is used by the IRA, environmental extremists, Timothy McVeighs, Ted Kaczynskis, Joe Stacks, Eric Rudolphs, and yes, the Mideast radicals of this world.
There will always be individuals and groups who use tactics of terror to get across their message. We will never eradicate them; but we can take the target off our backs if we pay attention to studies like Robert Pape's and dare to change our interventionist policies.
We must reject intellectual laziness. As Americans, we must choose better sources for our information that are not driven by political agendas. We can no longer label and judge collectives, but must return to the premise on which this country was founded--the recognition of and protection for individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No one should be judged by his race or religion, but by his individual character. (Where have we heard that before?) If we really believe that, it's time we put it into practice and stem the hysterical tide.
As Christians, we do well if we heed God's command in Exodus 22:21: “You shall not vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
I am keenly aware that in the context of this verse, God was establishing laws for a Jewish theocracy. Christians who try to apply such rules to America's Republic today make the same mistake as Islamic fundamentalists.
Nevertheless, I believe God's intent in this verse transcends a certain people, place and time; it speaks to how humans are to treat each other--in this case, settled occupants to newcomers in their midst.
The Hebrew word for stranger in this passage is GEYR, meaning: a guest, a foreigner, alien, sojourner. A dictionary definition expounds even further: foreigner, resident alien, outsider, visitor, intruder, new arrival, or a person that is unknown or with whom one is unacquainted.
We were once the reviled Irish, Chinese, Blacks, Italians, Japanese, Indians, Cubans, Koreans, and Jews who came to America with our unique expressions of Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. We were the Germans who had to change the spellings of our last names in order to be accepted. All of our ancestors had to carve out their piece of the American dream surrounded by the prejudices and racism of those that got here ahead of them.
One day the Hispanic communities from Mexico and other Latin countries will be added to the historical record, along with diverse ethnicities that bring their Muslim faith to our country. What will it say of our generation? Will we be indicted or celebrated? Will there be accounts of civil concord and courageous bridges across communities or will the history books chronicle horrific bans on personal liberties?
If we dismiss this idea as preposterous, we need a refresher course in how the German people were collectively led to turn on the Jewish population, and systematically reduce them--aided by state and media propaganda--to the status of "vermin". That's why they could calmly turn aside as the Jews were led to concentration camps. The Christian nation of Germany no longer believed them to be human beings.
You say it cannot happen again? I hope you're right; but you have to agree that after reading the above quotes from the 1940s, the climate of bigotry in this country is comparable--the words are strikingly similar; the fears, suspicions, and hatreds are registering the same fervor.
Will we make the same mistake? Where was the American Church in 1942 when the Japanese were herded into camps? Where was the church-at-large in Germany when the Jews were rounded up?
Where is the church in the U.S. today? To whom are we listening? Who shapes our opinions--political pundits and savvy talk show hosts or the character of Christ and His Word?
Almost daily, I run across examples of dishonest journalism. Time and space do not permit me to share all of what I've collected, but a while back I was sent a photo of Muslims praying on the streets of NYC.
The headlines screamed that Muslims were taking over and bringing traffic to a standstill as they brazenly took to the streets every Friday to pray! And yes, there was a large crowd pictured. In a few minutes, however, I discovered it was taken at a ONCE-A-YEAR event.
Another story was "Elementary School Forced to Abide By Muslim Dietary Laws"! A quick check told the whole story: A charter school in Oak Park, CA (in the San Diego area), with mostly Somali children, had closed and a nearby public school (Carver) quickly assimilated the 100 Muslims.
The school officials thought since the Muslim children were already following their dietary laws, it would be wise to try to accommodate them in order to make the transition easier. The only thing really noticeable? No pork. Now, turkey-based versions replace all ham and sausage items on school menus district-wide. Officials insist that a move was already underway to develop healthier alternatives to pork in school lunches before the arrival of the Somali students.
I remember having to eat fish on Fridays at my school in SC. I was told it was because Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on those days. I still HATE those square pieces of fish and fish sticks, but I don't hate Catholics. I wonder if the story would have gone viral if the children had been Orthodox Jews.
Carver also came under fire for supposedly teaching Arabic and allowing Muslim students to pray. Here's the truth behind what can often be "nasty" sounding facts:
1) Arabic was simply added to the list of second languages from which children can choose to learn while at Carver. NO child is being forced to learn Arabic!
2) Carver originally set aside fifteen minutes of non-instructional time daily in which Muslim students could formally pray; but the others students were also free to assemble in other areas on campus to participate in their versions of student-initiated, student-led prayer. Children had the freedom to opt out for a study period.
That initiation by Carver's administration drew so much heat from an uninformed public that now students can pray on their own during lunch, recess or other breaks. In other words, there is no "officially" set time for students to get together.
Recently, I saw on one of my social sites a comment about Muslims gleefully gloating over the Anne Frank Center moving next door to the proposed Mosque site at Park 51 in NYC. It didn't take me long to get the whole story.
First, Muslim representatives from the Cordoba Initiative (at the time of this writing) have yet to comment on the Anne Frank Center's location. In fact, the center itself released a statement indicating they were pleased with their new location. The museum is in a twenty-story building two blocks away from Park 51.
Nevertheless, here's what one blogger said in her opening statement:
"The latest sell on the Ground Zero mega mosque is that the Anne Frank museum will be going in next door in Mr. Rauf's neighborhood. Funny how the Islamic supremacists say the Ground Zero mosque is not near Ground Zero, but the Anne Frank museum is next door."
That said, she still linked to a report in the New York Post with this misleading headline: "Imam's Girl Next Door".
From what you just read, don't you get the impression that the Muslims at the Cordoba Initiative are strutting before the press?
Why, the blogger even insists the "Islamic supremacists SAY" the museum is next door. Really? I could not find any official press statement backing that up, even when I scoured the Cordoba Initiative website and other Muslim organizations.
 |
| The Boomerang Card |
This notorious blogger accompanies her inflammatory introduction with an altered sketch of Anne Frank wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress.
It was sent to her by one of her fans who found it posted on a box on a NY street.
Where did this artwork originate? Is it a Cordoba conspiracy? NO!
It's from Amsterdam--way back in 2008!
Now get this: the image started as the graffiti of a local street artist in the Netherlands. It was picked up by actress Birgit Schuurman while acting as editor-in-chief for Boomerang Publishers.
She decided to use the image on cards distributed throughout the Netherlands to show that Israelis and Palestinians can work together regardless of their past. Schuurman explained, "The card is about a desired image of the future, in which two oppressed peoples live side by side harmoniously."
Was the graffiti in bad taste? I believe it was. But is it now an organized attempt by NYC Muslims to make fun of Anne Frank and brag that their two centers are practically neighbors? NO!
Now tell me, what would you have automatically believed if all you had at your disposal was that blogger's information?
I know: Muslims are flooding NYC with this tasteless piece of Wahhabist-inspired propaganda to promote the ironic "closeness" of Park 51 mosque and the Anne Frank Center.
Keep in mind, these are just the reports I had time to examine. Ask yourself...
How many more reports are half-truths or even terrible distortions--just like these?
Am I getting the real story, or could I be the object of political and religious propaganda?
Am I contributing to the scaremongering in this nation by passing along such misinformation?
Do I do so because I really believe it's true or because it conveniently confirms my fears and feeds my prejudices?
Two closing thoughts:
Ignore them (you know who they are) when they bellow, "Don't look behind the curtain"! Pull it back anyway and see what's really behind all the hype.
Find the courage and contentment to just be an American; and likewise, so consider your neighbor.
It was sent to her by one of her fans who found it posted on a box on a NY street.
Where did this artwork originate? Is it a Cordoba conspiracy? NO!
It's from Amsterdam--way back in 2008!
Now get this: the image started as the graffiti of a local street artist in the Netherlands. It was picked up by actress Birgit Schuurman while acting as editor-in-chief for Boomerang Publishers.
She decided to use the image on cards distributed throughout the Netherlands to show that Israelis and Palestinians can work together regardless of their past. Schuurman explained, "The card is about a desired image of the future, in which two oppressed peoples live side by side harmoniously."
Was the graffiti in bad taste? I believe it was. But is it now an organized attempt by NYC Muslims to make fun of Anne Frank and brag that their two centers are practically neighbors? NO!
Now tell me, what would you have automatically believed if all you had at your disposal was that blogger's information?
I know: Muslims are flooding NYC with this tasteless piece of Wahhabist-inspired propaganda to promote the ironic "closeness" of Park 51 mosque and the Anne Frank Center.
Keep in mind, these are just the reports I had time to examine. Ask yourself...
How many more reports are half-truths or even terrible distortions--just like these?
Am I getting the real story, or could I be the object of political and religious propaganda?
Am I contributing to the scaremongering in this nation by passing along such misinformation?
Do I do so because I really believe it's true or because it conveniently confirms my fears and feeds my prejudices?
Two closing thoughts:
Ignore them (you know who they are) when they bellow, "Don't look behind the curtain"! Pull it back anyway and see what's really behind all the hype.
Find the courage and contentment to just be an American; and likewise, so consider your neighbor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment