United We Stand!

by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr., International Director Bridges for Peace
November 23, 2003


{snip}

Case #3: Around the world during the past 10 years, almost every violent act of wanton terrorism has been perpetrated on the fringes of the Islamic world or by Islamic groups, e.g., the Middle East, Chechnya, the Balkans, Sudan, Djibouti, Indonesia, Pakistan and India, the Philippines, Kenya, S. Africa, S. America, and the USA.

{snip}

Pluralism is not an Islamic ideal. According to Islam, the world is separated into two camps, the Dar al-Salaam, the House of Peace (Muslims), and Dar al-Harb, the House of War (non-Muslims, i.e., infidels). There is particular Islamic prejudice towards Jews and Christians, who are chief among the infidels (Surat At-Taubah 9:29). Islamic faith is spread through territorial conquest, and the subjugation of those conquered. It is not conversion of the heart, as in Judaism and Christianity. Historically, Islam has been an aggressive force in the world as it has sought to spread its influence through conquest (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65). While Muslims freely worship and build innumerable mosques in the US and other Western countries, in Islamic nations Christians have been subjugated, killed, their churches destroyed, and any public worship forbidden.

While there may be interactions between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, it is only for the benefit of the Islamic nation, not because of a desire for rapprochement between those in the Dar al-Salaam and the Dar al-Harb. Simply put, the non-Muslim cannot be a legitimate ally or negotiating partner because they are from a different world (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51).

{snip}

Now that Islam is asking the Western world to remove its support of Israel or else be subject to their terror attacks, the answer is to continue to support Israel and NOT disconnect our relationship just to appease Islam.

{snip}


http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/commentary/Article-5.html

Not to mention innaccurate... when did "Islamic forces" conquer and subjugate Indonesia or Malaysia?

surprised really...

Please. And do you deny the radical Islamic terror in Indonesia?

and please read the article.

It makes constant accusations against Islam. Not RADICAL Islam, not Islamism, but ISLAM. If that isn't racist, I don't know what is.

I wanted to know your complaints BEFORE I read it for that exact reason. I wanted to know what you saw. I will read it after football today. (I do have priorities.)

I am not a muslim but I have a fairly good understanding of the religion.

It is indeed so that Islam is not a religion of pluralism but not neither is Christianity and in particular the highly exclusive nature of Judaism.

The piece was written with a foregone conclusion in mind and then sought to find supporting criteria.

However, by the same token I could move forward and say that most conflicts are either supported, instigated or fought by the most Christian nation in the world, namely the U.S., establishing here a relationship would be ludicrous at best.

Somehow this notion of 'Islam fights the infidels' is simply not based on the Qu'uran. I personally would liken the teachings of Muhammed to the Monroe doctrine.

Indeed, Islam has its fair share of extremists. The reason why these extremists can use a propaganda of religion is that muslims are engulfed in their religion. Prayer five times a day, a month of fasting - the muslim lives his religion every day. Thus it makes it easy to latch onto this submission of religion and misdirect it.

However, this is not the fault of a religion but a clever ploy that ruthlessly exploits the devotion of many.

so who is perpetuating this " clever ploy that ruthlessly exploits the devotion of many" ??

and just how successfull are they??

i'm a little tired today...bad nite's sleep.


i'll try later. sorry

You agree that it is only spread through subjugation and force, despite the cases of Indonesia and Malaysia?

where did i say that ??

I might have misunderstood your post.

When you said "just what's posted" did you mean that you agreed with "just what's posted"?

If I misunderstood you, I sincerely apologize.

i looked over what was posted...i made no comments
about whether i agree or disagree.

sheesh...

i promise, just for you , i will read it when i wake up.

calm down...

thank you for clarifying.

"Now that Islam is asking the Western world to remove its support of Israel..."

Islam is asking this? Who speaks for Islam? It has no central authority or single leader, like the Pope for Roman Catholics or the Archbishop of Canterbury for Anglicans.

EDITED for typing.

The site is a Chiristian Zionist site, as one can see by clicking Who are we? on the homepage:

Bridges For Peace is a Jerusalem-based, Bible-believing Christian organization supporting Israel and building relationships between Christians and Jews worldwide through education and practical deeds expressing God's love and mercy.

Now that I thumped the messenger, let's go to the message.

It is a clash of culture and religion. While western leaders are careful not to characterize this world threat as a religious war, which is prudent, it nevertheless is the result of an Islamic worldview that cannot accept the preeminence of non-Muslims in realms they control or want to control. Islam does not mean "peace," as I have recently heard it described by some Muslim clerics in the US, who are trying to separate the September 11th attacks from Islam . . . .
Pluralism is not an Islamic ideal. According to Islam, the world is separated into two camps, the Dar al-Salaam, the House of Peace (Muslims), and Dar al-Harb, the House of War (non-Muslims, i.e., infidels).

One should always be suspicious when the argument ascribes a belief or action to an entity denoted by a collective noun, such as "Israel said this" or "The Rpublican Party does that". Such statements should be made very carefully; careless use of this kind of language usually leads to sweeping generalizations, which in turn may lead to some sorts of logical fallacies such as guilt by association. Neither Israel nor the Republican Party speak or act for themselves, but through their individual members. That Ariel Shoron is a rightwing moron doesn't mean that Israel is a rightwing nation, only that her current Prime Minister is a rightwing politician. That Trent Lott is a racist does not necessarily mean the the GOP is a racist political orgnaization, only that the former Republican Senate leader is a racist.

A religious faith is no more a monolithic entity than a nation or a political party. Islam is one of the great faiths of mankind and has over a billion followers. It means something slightly different to each individual follower. To Osama bin Laden it means that he has the right to murder and oppress all who stand in his way; to Yusef Islam, the sogwriter formerly known as Cat Stevens, it means living quietly in South America contemplating his relationship with God through the Koran.

The above passage takes some attributes that can be ascribes to some followers of Islam and attempts to assert that it is true of the faith in general. Simply asserting the general from the particular is always a hazardous undertaking. Here, it just doesn't work. The larger and more abstract the general, the less likely what is true of the particular will be true of the general.

True, Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. However, Yusef Islam and Muhammad Ali are not. They draw something quite different from their faith than does Osama.

Today, Muslims deal with the modern world in many ways. Some reject modernism totally. Others attempt to reconcile the complexities of modern life and look to Islam for guidence in dealing with whatever personal crisis may arise. For Mr. Wagner, the author of this piece, to make the assertions about Islam that he does shows that his is blnd to what Islam means to most of its followers.

No worthwhile wisdom can come from a piece based on such a faslehood as this. Mr. Wagner's piece is nonsense.

Mr Rabbit! :toast:

ARCHIVE_DATE:Wed, Jul 24, 2002
ARCHIVE_NAME:commentary
ARCHIVE_HEAD:United We Stand!
ARCHIVE_AUTH:by Clarence H. Wagner, Jr., International Director Bridges for Peace


New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
All threads must be based on material originally published no more than 3 weeks ago. The "clock" does not restart if an article is republished. Exceptions will be allowed, if based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.
The subject heading for threads must contain the title of the source article. The only exception is when you must shorten long titles or to make the subject of the article more clear.
Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.


Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
I/P Affairs