mightychurch.com

David Hicks is in the news. Was he a terrorist?

My question is “was Mohammed a terrorist, and do his teachings inspire terrorists?”

This website True history of Islam which offers this:

Just a cursory look at Muhammad’s Qur’an (Koran) should be enough to warn you to keep your distance from Islam:
In it you will see “unbridled raw evil”, such as statements like these:
- Truly, god loves those who fight
- Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them,
  beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.
- Chop off their hands and chop off their fingertips
- When you meet the unbelievers, chop off their heads
- Fight and slay those who don’t convert wherever you find
  them
- Believers, take neither Jew nor Christians for your friends
- Those who follow Muhammad are ruthless to unbelievers
- Those who reject Islam are “the vilest of creatures” and thus deserve
  no mercy
- Fight them until Islam reigns supreme (throughout the world)

There are more than 100 verses in the Qur’an (Koran) advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.  There are exactly 123 verses in the Qur’an about killing and fighting.
The word “Islam” has been falsely proclaimed by Muslims to mean peace. The word Islam, actually means “submission” to the Muslim god of intolerance and hatred. It comes from the root Arabic word “taslim”. In Arabic, the word for peace is only “solh”.

and this one Was Mohammed a terrorist? says:

Was Muhammad a terrorist? Of course he was. You’ve seen the information quoted exclusively from Islamic source materials. And there are many more crimes committed by Muhammad that could be detailed. To keep this article brief I only listed five. Yes Muhammad was a terrorist, and yes, terrorism is allowed in Islam. And yes, Fundamentalist Muslims are in a state of war with all those who reject Islam and terrorism is a legitimate weapon for their use.

I would hope that western mass media point out these facts in order to help both Muslims and non-Muslims look at the person who inspires such great following in the world. I would also hope that the message of Jesus Christ and the gospel should also be spelled out more clearly to the world.

Jesus is the only person with the message of hope and salvation, and a person like Mohammed is only counteracting this message with his lies which only lead to the despair we see so many Muslims (like David Hicks) living, as they live lives in slavery to the wrong message.

This coming from the weekly Economist email feed on politics:

A string of bombs probably planted by al-Qaeda went off all over IRAQ.
A suicide-bomber pretending to be a beggar killed at least 30 people,
including a prominent member of parliament, in one of Baghdad’s main
Sunni mosques.

At least 23 people were killed in a suicide-bomb attack on the UN
building in NIGERIA’S capital, Abuja. Suspicion fell on Boko Haram, a
Muslim extremist group that had previously operated in the country’s
north-east but which—it is surmised—may have forged links with
al-Qaeda. - See article
http://news.economist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/eCdql0diXuq0BV4a0cgpE0E5

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for a suicide-
bomb attack on a military academy in ALGERIA that killed 18 people.

All perpetrated by Al-Qaeda operatives.  And this kind of stuff goes on every week.  This is crazy.

Hi Arthur, I just dont get why?

Do extreme Islamists want to drag us all back into the medieval ages of Mohammed’s plan?

Can’t they see it just doesnt work, and that they are following the ideas of a dark world?

What is the use of going backwards to a world that has been left behind?

Problem is that they dont listen, and are actually not capable of reasoning on the subject because of centuries of brainwashing.

David Hicks joined up with Al-Quaeda, possibly on the basis that he only wanted to be a soldier, according to his account. Apparently he was rejected by the Australian Army for some reasons prior to his going overseas to train and fight.

No point asking me why, as I don’t understand much of what it says.  And as I’ve said before, I’ll probably have to read it to understand it a bit more - though it is said that the Koran contradicts itself in many areas.

But there seems to be a very influential part of Islam in al-Qaeda (and the like) which interprets it in a violent way.

I think a likely key factor is that Arab / Muslim cultures have a honor vs shame ethos, rather than an innocence vs guilt ethos as western cultures do.  I have read also that some cultures have a fear vs power ethos (Asia, Africa).  See this link.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Honour-and-Shame-in-Islam.htm
 
So what we see as guilty behaviour (ie: evil), they might view as necessary for honor. 
This is most obvious in ‘honor-killings’.
     
Note that the Bible (esp. the OT) refers to all three ‘systems’ in some ways.  Not in a way to give equal weighting - more that fear and shame are a consequence of guilt, I think.

Ros,

the link you posted is very interesting. I have dealt with Muslims in my job, and what is written about their honour/shame principles rings true. They so often offer me small gifts and seek acceptance and honour. It is interesting to what is written about it being OK to lie if that is necessary to protect ones honour. And, the honour killing of women being acceptable to Islamic culture. (It is all so medieval and backward in so many ways compared to Western culture)

No wonder we have the saying “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”

Going on the philosophy of Islam, it is no wonder they dont ever listen to the Western ideal of good versus evil, which is the principle we are used to.

It’s no wonder they dont see acts of war and terrorism as wrong if they think they are keeping their honour by doing so. It seems it will just go on unless they adopt Western ideas of good versus evil which relate to the Christian message.

I guess God and his son Jesus’ prophetical message is the answer to Islam’s world of worry, (and also Eastern Asian ideas) and it is the way all people may find true peace and true happiness. That is, free from living to the never ending demands of culture, and religious slavery.

That, I guess is why God had to send Jesus to this world to proclaim the way to enter God’s holy presence, and to receive His forgiveness.
It’s a pity many people do not hear the message of true freedom and success, and learn to treasure goodness over evil, and to be able to recognise which is which.

Talk about an argument that can be turned back at you.
The Bible is also full of contradictions.
There are oodles of verses on recommended violence in the Bible.
So far this has not been a useful discussion. It essentially says Islam is bad and to Muslims it is the equivalent of saying “You’re ugly”
Tell me how this is good.

Owen,

The bible doesnt contradict itself, it has an Old Testament, and a New one; and the latter simply fulfils the first.

(I dont know which church you go to Owen, but if it has taught you that the bible is simply full of contradictions, you have been gypped, and you should ask for you money back!)

The Old Testament speaks of such violence, and Islam relates itself more to that world. Islam lives in a world which rejects the gospel, in favour of retaining their culture. (similar to Jews still held captive in the Old Testament way of viewing God)

Islam relies on religion, following laws and observances, and does not feed on God’s true message given by Jesus to that part of the world that would listen. Jews fall into a similar boat, but fortunately they know God’s true nature.

Fortunately Jesus overcame man’s sin, and only he offers a new different world to those who would accept the message of peace, forgiveness and hope sent by God.

I think what this thread says to Muslims is not “you are ugly”, but it says “get out of this useless religion because it doesnt help you, or bring you to God.”

It says don’t be a slave to sin, and explains why living as a Muslim is still living in sin. Hopefully it will get some Muslims to read the truth in the gospel. That is the aim, it’s not meant as an insult.

Well, from where I sit there are contradictions in the Bible. I don’t have a problem with this, I don’t believe in biblical inerrancy so it’s all good. But that aside, the argument you raised is what I was addressing.. There are admonitions to violence in the Bible, in fact there are admonitions to genocide.
My comment was that your argument was exposed.

Ros Burgess posted a very interesting link above, and I have sent it off to my bible study group, one of whom is an ex-Muslim from Iran. It is worth reading for everyone, because it poiints out the sociological differences in our world which go on to explain the politics of the world we live in.

All in my bible group found it very educational.

From the same website, I also found that there was indeed a Reformation within Islam a couple of centuries ago. And the link explains the difference between that time, compared to the Christian Reformation of about 500 years ago. And also what a reformation means to those two distinct religions.

It is called the illusion of reforming Islam

Although Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation are almost identical in their scope and methodologies, the outcome has been very different. The literal reading of the Bible became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of Protestant societies and the foundation of social organization of the English colonies in America.

These reformers literally transformed the philosophical, political, religious, and social landscape of Europe. We still live in a society dominated by protestant theory of social organization.

American political discourse is essentially Calvinistic. In other words its social organization is based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures…..

What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is not free but a slave of Allah. People are Ibad (slaves).

This is diametrically different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism and here is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a God, both rely on an intermediary between man and God, both faiths are eschatological and have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadans claim, but it is an anti Christian belief in its essence. These faiths are different. One advocates freedom of man and the other his slavery. One brings the message of liberation the other, of submission.

The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary what Islam stands for. When you see Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true essence of Islam, which is anti freedom, anti democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.

True Muslims should not be free to choose, but they should emulate Muhammad.

I suggest that to get a better understanding of how honor / shame works in Islam / mid-east cultures, investigate a broader range of sources.  The article I linked was from the Islam-watch website and would be expected to have a certain bias.  I thought that it was reasonably objective, but I’m no expert.

Hi Ros, good idea. I found this blog in the UK Telegraph called Liberal intellectuals are frightened of confronting Islam’s honour-shame culture

It seems to back your link on honour and shame as essential in the culture of Islam.

Eg:

In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be “polite”; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.
Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy – make that pain worthwhile.
But such a system represents a crucible of humiliation for alpha males, especially those who believe that the social order depends on the honour of ruling elite, like the anti-Dreyfusards around 1900, ready to sacrifice a single man for the honour of Army and Church.
This is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim’s contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity.
On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.

and this about the ‘lliberal’ approach to dealing with the problem:

And yet, so far, we are doing very badly, mostly because we avoid dealing with the problem. The “thin skin” of Muslims is proverbial, and much public, diplomatic, and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and placates that cultural reality. When Western positive-sum principles (we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win) meets Arab zero-sum principles (they can only win, if we lose), we most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).
In the last decade this has gotten much worse. The behaviour of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory towards touchy Muslims. Repeatedly, as in the case of Pope Benedict, they step in to prevent anyone (fellow infidels), whom they smear as Islamophobes, from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources of Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.

I was thinking of how honor and shame are represented in the Bible.  It seems to be a middle-eastern thing, and Christianity came from the middle east, after all.
   
I’ve been reading Isaiah.  In the servant songs of chs 42, 49, 50 and 53, it says the servant is honored in the eyes of God (50v5) yet despised and rejected by men (53v3).  But he will not be be put to shame, because the Lord helps him (50v7).  Also Heb 12:2 ‘Jesus,...for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.’. 
 
Jesus turns honor and shame on its head.  Isaiah 53 shows that it is Jesus’ righteousness before God that really counts.  He bears our guilt, so we in him might be righteous.  ‘As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” ’ (Romans 9:33)
 
From what I’ve heard, it’s experience of Jesus’ love that draws people out of false religions, not convincing them their way is bad.

True, Ros.
The gospel is the only vehicle which has the power to save mankind. (But one has to hear or read it, and for many that doesnt happen due to sticking to a religion.)

We can only become one of God’s household through faith in Jesus. Being delivered from shame is one of the elements which comes into effect through being a Christian though. There are other elements in the mixture too.

The Shame/honour system is said to be Meditteranean, and not just Muslim. We see such horrors as honour killings of wives, daughters etc who may bring the family etc into shame by their behaviour (such as becoming Christian, for example).

PS: I have seen similar reactions to Christian conversion from Catholic, and Orthodox families, and I think they have a similar outlook in some way, similar to Muslims, due to little bible based knowledge of Christ in some families. We had the case at my church where a Greek girl was locked up because she went to our bible based church.

Western culture through bible based influences has become a ‘guilt’ based culture, which from your link above, has our society looking through a good/ evil lens, and not from a shame/honour lens.

Our two cultures are looking at life from different viewpoints, from what is said in your link, and also from my personal experience.

We should not say Islam is bad to a Muslim, but as you say, point them to Jesus via the gospel. They are invited to decide whether Islam is bad when they know Jesus. Hitting them over the head will not convert them.

Good call Ros,
It is most certainly not effective to tell folks how wrong they are, how deluded, how .... whatever. Our task is to be Jesus to others- which means to love them. Not to spend time telling them they are ugly.
By “ugly” I mean whenever we choose to attack others for being of the wrong faith, or following what we consider to be false doctrine we are telling them that they are ugly. Not loving, not Jesus- and certainly being divisive where divisiveness is not called for.

Where it is about truth though, I don’t see anything wrong with highlighting the differences between faith.

Speaking of differences - here’s another one.  Some Muslims feel fit to commit violence against those who don’t fit to their faith.  I don’t think Christians or Jews do that nowadays.  This is a libertarian critique of Islam following the bombings of a satirical paper’s headquarters:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/11/france-and-islam?fsrc=nlw|wwp|11-3-2011|politics_this_week

France and Islam - Fighting freedom with fire

The Economist, Nov 2nd 2011, 15:06 by S.P. | PARIS

WHEN the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, reprinted controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet, Muhammad, five years ago, French political leaders were ambivalent. Jacques Chirac, then the president, called it a “manifest provocation”. “Anything that can wound the convictions of others should be avoided,” he declared. Today’s political reactions to a fresh controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and Islam have been far more robust.

The paper’s issue dated November 2nd and entitled “Charia Hebdo” (a play on the French word for sharia), is “edited” by Muhammad, who threatens in a front-page cartoon “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!” Inside are dozens of satirical stories and cartoons depicting Muhammad, as well as caricatures featuring women wearing the burqa, the face-covering veil. The idea was to “celebrate” the victory of Islamists at Tunisia’s recent election, and the introduction of sharia law in Libya. Late last night, the publication’s offices in the 20th arrondissement of Paris were firebombed.

This time, French politicians have been unequivocal. François Fillon, the centre-right prime minister, not only denounced the attack, but declared that “freedom of expression is an inalienable value”. Bertrand Delanoë, the Socialist mayor of Paris, deplored the “act of violence against the freedom of expression”.

In some ways, this is a straightforward issue of the right to free speech. France outlaws holocaust-denial, but otherwise protects free speech. Controversial cases often end up in court. Since it was founded 19 years ago, Charlie Hebdo’s editor told Le Monde, his paper has been sued 13 times by various Catholic organisations, offended by the depiction of Christianity—but only once by Muslim groups, which went after Charlie Hebdo over the 2006 caricature issue and lost the case.

Yet the controversy comes at a delicate time for France’s efforts to reconcile its secular tradition with the demands of its Muslim minority of some 5m, which is Europe’s biggest. France has banned the wearing of the burqa in public. It recently cracked down on Friday prayers in the streets of Paris. A permit to build a big new mosque in Marseilles has just been refused on technical grounds. Any pretext can be used these days to spread (and amplify via social media) outrage at the mere hint of Islamophobia.

Hence, presumably, the more cautious reaction today of French Muslim leaders. Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, an official body, condemned the attack, and stated his “profound attachment” to freedom of expression. But he also “strongly deplored the very caricatural tone” of the newspaper towards Islam.

Many Muslims will indeed find the cartoons offensive, not least because they breach a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. But Nicolas Sarkozy, the current French president who was then interior minister, put it well in 2006 during the previous controversy: he preferred, he said, “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”.

Arthur, you said “Where it is about truth though, I don’t see anything wrong with highlighting the differences between faith.”

I agree. If we listen to Jesus, he says the only way is through him. The only way to God. He says he speaks God’s truth, and that we shouldnt be mislead by the ideas of men, or useless religions.

Jesus says all other ways, religions, or understandings of God are false, and not to be followed. That is the Christian message from the source, Jesus.

Jesus attacked the falsehood of the Pharisees, with their incorrect religious beliefs. Going on Jesus’ track record, he would do the same to Islam. He would not tolerate their false ideas. He would point out where they are wrong, and ask them to follow him.

How the West Is Fanning Islamic Extremism

This article explains how people in Islamic counties have no freedom to speak their minds, or especially criticise or examine Islam.

Hamza Kashgari, a Saudi columnist may face death for sending three tweets.  Addressing the Prophet Muhammad he wrote, “I have loved the rebel in you,” but “I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.” He also wrote, “I shall shake [your hand] as equals do … I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”
The Saudi Twitter-sphere exploded with responses to Kashgari, with commentators accusing him of blasphemy. A Facebook account was immediately set up calling for his death and in no time over 13,000 Muslims subscribed to it.
Kashgari escaped to seek asylum in New Zealand, but he was detained in Malaysia. Despite pleas from several human rights organizations and a High Court injunction obtained by his lawyer to not extradite him back, where he would not receive a fair trial, he was quickly deported in a private plane. Malaysia does not have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia.
What makes this case even more disturbing is the fact that Saudi Arabia is reported to have used Interpol’s “red notice” system to locate and arrest the 23 year old journalist.  Police in Kuala Lumpur said Kashgari was detained at the airport “following a request made to us by Interpol.”
Muslim dissidents face dire consequences in Islamic countries. To a great extent the western media and the western governments are to be blamed. Not only they don’t condemn these human rights violations, they are often reticent to report them.  This silence is interpreted as a green light by the governments in Islamic countries and a seal of approval…..

Muslim dissidents face constant threats to their lives and in western countries, their voices are systematically gaged.  The actions of the Saudi government, the Malaysian government and the thousands of fanatical Muslims who demanded the death of Kashgari are deplorable. But not a single government or news media condemned them.  Human rights organizations pleaded for his release, but none reproached the conduct of these two Muslim countries and the reaction of the people calling for this man’s death.
Those who speak out blame the victim instead of the abusers.  Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British charity Fair Trials International, which has campaigned against the blanket enforcement of Interpol red notices, said: “Interpol should be playing no part in Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of Hamza Kashgari, however unwise his comments on Twitter.”
Unwise!?  There is nothing unwise in criticizing any religion.  All religions are regularly criticized. Why Islam should be an exception?  Comments like this give Muslims the confirmation that Islam is above criticism.
Why not tell the truth and call the blasphemy law inhumane, evil and barbaric?  Killing someone for expressing his views is not civil. Why not call a spade a spade?

And I wonder, do many Islamic people change their views after they have settled in Australia?