My question is;
Where is the outrage at Islam being unfairly characterized by the large sect of the Muslims in fundamental countries who actually perform these terrible actions under the banner of Islam?
Why isn’t THAT the more heinous crime?
Why doesn’t Anwar Ghani (the Federations President) hear comments like the ones the minister made and think;
“If only the fundamental Islamic countries would stop such immoral, misogynistic, and hateful practices we wouldn’t be so unfairly characterized by the world at large.”
Instead, he thinks;
“The Minister is espousing religious intolerance by painting us all in a negative light for the actions of those who do such things.”
On the surface I can understand this thinking, but here is the problem.
The people who do, and support this sort of thing are not few in number.
They are not from extremist sects.
They are not from the fringe of their religion.
They are from the fundamental countries that represent Islam on a world stage.
They are from the nations that gave birth to Islam, and from whom their religious dogma flows.
They are representative of the central and world wide Muslim community.
In short they are exactly the people that we should be garnering our impressions of their religion.
If Muslims feel that they are being poorly represented by such remarks, then maybe they should send a letter to the political leaders in the fundamental Islamic nations instead and decry the acceptance of such practices as “against the spirit of their faith” or just plain immoral.
Moderate Muslims from across the world should be standing up in protest against the terrible crimes that are being committed in the name of their religion.
They should be striving to escape the stereotypes by displaying utter intolerance for the evils that take place in Islam in the countries of it's origin.
They should be publicly saying "No" and examining the Qur'an to make the same excuses that Christians make about the evils of their book.
That it is a medieval book written by medieval men, and not to be taken literally any longer.
Their voice should be crying the loudest in opposition to the crimes committed in their name, instead of saving its volume to defensively cry "foul", "unfair", and "stereotype" when people across the world notice those crimes.
Wouldn’t this be more productive than merely asking offended people worldwide to ignore all the terrible things done in the name of their religion and let everyone live free of “unfair” judgment?
If they would express offense over the archaic rituals of the fundamental and central Islamic cultures first and with the goal of ridding the world of such terrible influences, then and only then, would they have a right to express offense at being “unfairly characterized”.
And really….
Who is characterizing Islam to a higher degree?
Is it Minister Maurice Williamson with an broad stroke and stereotyping comment about Islamic atrocities, or is it those Muslims living in the countries that gave birth to Islam and who allow, condone and perpetrate such evil acts?
I think that you know the answer.
Let’s hope that Islam discovers it soon too.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gw7x1wqeJ_0ZAWOEjprBoiDUIW7A
Cartoon found here
Jay there is an important fundamental difference between the bible and the Qur'an.
ReplyDeleteThe bible is a book written decades or even centuries after the events within it, by people who weren't there and who are relying on oral tradition and or working from memory. The stories are meant to be allegorical and are largely treated as such.
The Qur'an is a single book written by a single man as the "revelations" hit him. It is not meant to be allegorical it is meant to be taken as the truth, the very word of god.
Some Muslims do speak out, but it doesn't help "Islam"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfe_1282507822
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOy7Rj71m4k&feature=related
Sorry Martin but the bible is actually meant to be taken very literally. Even jesus says that the bible is not a book for personal interpretation. In that it is no different then the Quran.
ReplyDeleteAs far a when it was written, the OT was written over hundreds of years before Christ and by many different authors. Much of it is taken literally every day. And as I said in my blog Christians generally ignore the parts they don't like. That is why I wish that Muslims would do instead of insisting that the Quran is 100% true and then ignoring the examples that their churches most respected and elder spokesmen espouse.
I would have them speak put against the literal approach to the Quran and decry these terrible attitudes instead of crying offense and racism towards people who do admonish it.
I am sure that we agree but type and text sometimes betray our meaning.
The point is that the minister is not the one misrepresenting Islam.
Islam misrepresents Islam.
I
I would say Islam represents Islam actually, there is no misrepresentation. Their book states that these atrocities are in fact Lawful punishments for these "crimes".
ReplyDeletePerhaps the difference lies in the fact that Islam is a socio-political movement, there is no concept of rendering unto Caesar in the Qur'an/Islam like there is in Christianity.
I wouldn't disagree with you there Martin. Christianity is really no better though. They just ignore all the terrible things in their book. (unless it suits their own personal tastes)
ReplyDeleteNow THAT is a hypocrisy that I can get into. lol
It is true that their law supports their stupid and immoral book. And that is what "moderate" Muslims should be standing up against!
For the most part, they simply don't call for the change that is needed.
So they need to deal with the judgment they face with the knowledge that they are represented by that evil about which they stay silent!
Peace