Thursday, September 10, 2009

Jesus was a Muslim?

According to wikipedia, anyone who believes in God is a Muslim. Oh, AAAAAAND you have to say the shahada.

Whew! Close call. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to put down my bacon.

Anyway, since Richardson recently elected its very first Muslim, I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss on the blog.

Now, you all know that I like Amir, but I didn't vote for him. And I didn't vote for him because he is Muslim. Kind of racist of me I guess, but just being honest. I know very little about the Islamic faith and what I do know I've learned from Protestant pastors and ex-Muslims. All very scary and intense stuff. To me, you either have to be down with this religion or completely against it, there's not really a grey area of liking Islam. But according to Amir, there is.

So, I've compiled a list. Here is what I currently think I know about Islam:

*drumroll please*

They believe in the Old Testament.

They don't worship Jesus. (this is the deal breaker for me)


They pray five times a day, and it's very labor-intensive.

Muslims are commissioned by the Qur'an to kill all non-Muslims.....so maybe it was really Mr.Omar who loosened my lug nuts. *dun-dun-DUUUU!*

Cat Stevens converted after he almost drowned and God saved him.

Fundamentalist Muslims will kill their children if they convert to Christianity, although Amir said he'd be fine with his daughter becoming a Christian if that's what she chose to be, and that some extreme Christians have done the same thing. (Although, aside from Abraham I haven't really noticed that trend)

Muslim women wear burqas and sometimes set themselves on fire because of their abusive husbands and their oppression. (like I said, these are just the facts floating around in Destiny's head) *and by the way, not that anyone asked, but while we're on the subject, I kind of like the idea of burqas. Women shouldn't be forced to wear them, but I get the concept behind 'em, and being the proponent of modesty that I am, I think they are somewhat empowering. We should be able to choose what we skin we want to show or not show, and who's to say that all of these western women aren't really the ones who are being oppressed by this bleached out, silicone injected, starve to be thin society. Think of how much more comfortable many of us would be if our husbands were the only ones who saw our bodies and only our bodies, and when they did see some skin it was a special thing, not just a Tuesday trip to Walmart.

*steps off soapbox*

Plus, according to Amir, Muslim men are also called to be modest and he breaks the rules whenever he wears shorts. (I have noticed that the men love them some sandals though - Abrahm thinks men wearing sandals should be against the law here in America, with the penalty of a public stoning.)

Umm, let's see what else...

I've heard that Muslims prey on Christians because they are the easiest ones to convert.

Oh! Michael Jackson was one and had a whole Muslim posse called the nation of Islam. Pretty tough looking group.

Technically Muslim men aren't suppose to shake hands with women (another rule Amir breaks).

It makes me uneasy how this site puts evil in quotes here: "But Unlike some of the black sheep Historians we have taken a balanced approach and have also mentioned Great as well as some "Evil" Leaders like Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden." But maybe I'm just looking for something...

*reaching to the bottom of my Islam knowledge barrel*

Ummm, Paula Abdul is not one - She's Jewish.

Islam is very popular with black people, especially rappers, and boxers. (Proof: Busta Rhymes, Ice Cube, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Dave Chappell, Malcom X, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, & a couple of the Jackson's)

....so yeah, that's about all I got.

I guess in my humble reasoning, the negatives (honor killings) somewhat outweigh the positives (the Jackson's) and so I vote accordingly. I'm in desperate need of enlightenment and I'd like to hear from some readers. Preferably not the hateful and mean ones, but I'll take whatever I can get, because I do honestly believe that while many people disguise their disdain for Amir behind his carpet-baggerness, I bet some of it is derived from his Muslim faith as well. Just a guess though.

So Assalamu Alaikum! Now bring on the Anonymous posts!
(let 'em slide this time Bill)

{Disclaimer so that I can still get into heaven: Please don't allow this blog post to peak your interest and cause you to convert to Islam. Do not denounce Christ based on anything in it, or the comment section. And, um, if you are neither Muslim or Christian you should just know, Jesus is the tops.}

20 comments:

  1. Kudos to you for posting what a lot of people think, but don't say. I think a lot of people think/feel the same way, and it takes guts to lay it out in a public forum.

    I didn't vote for Amir, not because he's Muslim, or bald, but because I don't think he's qualified. So far, he's done little to change my mind. That's my soapbox.

    I would like to say there is a BIG difference in Islam and the Nation of Islam. Islam is an old religion that traces its roots back to Abraham with Mohammad as the prophet. The Nation of Islam was founded during the Depression in Detroit, and picks modern "prophets" such as Elijah Mohammad, Malcomn X, or Louis Farrakan to lead the group. Devout Muslims view the Nation of Islam as a heretic sect, and believe they are worse than Christians (as far as who should be beheaded first). IJS.

    Look, I grew up in Richardson in the 1970's. We had an influx of many cultures: Asians, Indo-Paks, and Latinos. I get along with everyone, but do have some of the same "feelings" and attitudes you expressed. Of course, the whole flying planes into skyscrapers doesn't help...

    ReplyDelete
  2. OMGoodness, I didn't even think about that, or the date today! Good thing I didn't put this off until tomorrow or it would've been extra offensive.

    Ok, so Islam and the Nation of Islam, two different things. Good to know. Thanks Anonymous!

    I hope some of my other concerns get addressed too. I guess not very many Muslims read my blog. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinSeptember 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM

    "Muslims are commissioned by the Qur'an to kill all non-Muslims."

    As it turns out, Muslims are normally forbidden to kill women, children, and unarmed men - in fact, pretty much anybody who isn't an enemy combatant. Muslims are also (like Christians) forbidden to commit suicide, which is why suicide bombings in civilian populations doubly horrify a lot of Muslims.

    The reason for this is that the Muslim view always allowed for people of the book (Jews and Christians) and I suppose even infidels to live under Muslim political domination. Jews and Christians would have to pay a special tax, but, on the other hand, were exempted from some duties (I think military duty was one). You could plausibly argue that for many periods of history, Jews were better treated under Muslim rulers than under Christian ones.

    But it is the Muslim understanding that religion and state are properly understood as unified that causes the friction. Secular societies - often but not always Christian (think India) - will not permit Muslim political domination, yet the common understanding in Muslim teaching is that Islam should rule all in both religion and state, and everyone not Muslim should understand that they will be better off once Muslims have restored the caliphate. So Osama Bin Ladin attacks us not only because we are corrupt (sometimes it's hard to argue with that), but also because the secular governments prevent the rightful rise of Muslim political domination, so, by definition, we all must be enemies who deserve nothing but death.

    This issue of separation of religion and state in most liberal societies and the expectation of a unified religion and state in the Muslim world is actually one of the biggest divides between us. Plenty of Muslims are personally happy to live in secular societies so long as they are free to worship as they please, but I don't think that as a world-wide religion, the Muslim community as a whole has confronted this issue head-on...sort of like Christians prior to the 1800s who pretty much said "love your neighbor as yourself" and "human slavery is OK" at the same time...

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Bill! I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all that. Very, very interesting. This was exactly the type of insight I was looking for!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, although Bill is obviously well read on the topic of Muslims and Islam, he is not well experienced. I was married for several years to a Muslim man, and the goal is to live in a world that world that practices Islam. In the mosque I attended with my husband, (well, certainly not "with", as the sexes are separate, the outrage one would hope to see over the terrorists was non existant.
    As for your councilman not minding if his daughter converted to Christianity, don't believe it. There is never a marriage between a Muslin and non Muslim, where the children are raised anything BUT Muslin.
    Having lived in Richardson many years ago, I find this blog very interesting. You have you fair share of problems, but speaking your minds is not one of them!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @anonymous above - thanks for sharing.

    As for our resident scholar, Bill McCalpin, his comments are purely academic at best. Regettably, they don't reflect the world today. While many muslims appear to be peace loving people, a good bit of the turmoil and terrorism in today's world is done in the name of Islam.

    American needs to wake up; as anonymous above notes, it is, indeed, the goal of Islam to have world wide domination.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous @ 9:16-

    Thanks for the insight! Amir might just be an odd duck, I dunno. His daughter goes to a Catholic school so I genuinely believe him when he says he would be ok if she chose a different religion, but they might not be the norm.

    As for me having many problems, I will take that as you meaning 'with my city.' (:

    ReplyDelete
  8. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinSeptember 11, 2009 at 12:34 AM

    The two posters don't really disagree with what I said. One said, "the goal [of her husband] is to live in a world that world that practices Islam".

    As I noted, the teaching of Islam is that religion and state should be combined and therefore the state should be Muslim. The teaching does not say that all residents of the state must be Muslim (see the section on Dhimmi at Wikipedia). However, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the husband of the first poster didn't say that everyone must be Muslim, as a large number of number of Muslims probably believe this...it just isn't supported by a literal reading of the Koran.

    As for "[w]hile many muslims appear to be peace loving people, a good bit of the turmoil and terrorism in today's world is done in the name of Islam", both phrases are true - many Muslims are peace-loving people and a good bit of the terrorism in today's world is done in the name of Islam.

    As you saw, my observations were to point out why some Muslims felt the need to attack the West, even when the West offers religious freedom. There is, indeed, a fundamental contradiction between the belief in the traditional Muslim understanding that the state must be Muslim (because religion and state are one), and in the secular world (like in the West) where we deliberately disengage religion and state.

    We can either look for Muslims who understand that this is the problem and get them thinking about a solution just as Christians in the 1800s rethought slavery, or we can assume that all Muslims are inherently evil and that they should be nuked.

    Make no mistake: if it comes to a choice of me being free or becoming a dhimmi, I'll be out there with my gun defending my way of life...but if there is a way to change the underlying worldview of the Muslims, then this is more likely to lead to a lasting peace...

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, I meant that the city of Richardson seems to have many problems, but you residents freely speak your minds. In the country where I am currently living, people are now finally speaking up on the corruption that we have ignored for decades. I applaud you all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Appearances are usually meant to be deceiving. Peaceful Muslims still have the goal of an Islamic world; they just work toward it in a different manner.
    As for those peoples that are targeted for conversion, it is the Black race in which the Muslims are most interested. Roman Catholics, (notably Latinos),and other Christians, generally don't have a crisis of faith, nor do those from India. However, Muslims are instructed to speak to the Black people to manipulate them into believing that they have been cheated by the white race, and also their own people, for so long that the superiority of the Islam religion is the one thing that will elevate them to their rightful position.
    I am only speaking from my own experience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 1: Once again Bill weighs in with his vast wealth of knowledge. Not that he has actual experience living in an Islamic country, but he does now Amir and that's enough, I guess. He's just our resident expert on topics ranging from how the DMN should run their blog, to legal advice, water bills, and now the centuries old divide between Islam and Western culture. I can only hope the Obama administration will appoint him as a czar. The Czar of Blowhards. The Czar of Fools. It could happen.
    I do take exception to much of what you wrote, because it's factually incorrect. Now he's waded into areas I happen to know a lot about. Let's look at a few of those points:
    1) Your first post..."Muslims are normally forbidden to kill women, children, and unarmed men." No, Bill, they are ALWAYS forbidden to kill innocents. Period. Again, the interpretation by Imams has broadened the scope of who exactly they can kill to include busboys at a restaurant in the World Trade Center, and secretaries from New Jersey. Bill, there are Imams, right here in Dallas teaching that NO AMERICAN is innocent. According to teachings going on all over this great big world of ours, all infidels are guilty, and deserve to die. This goes back to my second point above.
    2) You also tell us that Muslims AND Christians are forbidden to commit suicide. Please be accurate. It is Catholics who are forbidden by the church to commit suicide. It's a small distinction, but an important one. I say this to say I'm a Protestant, and I'm not sure if I can live in a world with many more of your "history" lessons.
    3)Next, you tell us about how great it is for Jews living in Muslim countries. You say this because...because...you actually lived in an Islamic country, right? Right? (*crickets*) Okay, Bill, again history ain't on your side. Ask the Jews of Iran or Iraq, Jordon or Syria, Saudi just how great it's been for the last 1000 or so years. You make an awful lot of assertions from your comfortable life in Richardson.
    4)Next, you finally answer the question the entire world has waited for...Why does bin Laden want to kill us? No, Bill, it's not because we are corrupt (unless, of course, you're talking about the current city council in Richardson). It's because we (the West) have rejected their prophet. We are not an exclusively Islamic country. And, as evidenced by his prolific recordings, bin Laden is super-duper pissed off about that thing with the Moors in Spain. What that has to do with America, I'm not sure. He's subscribed to a polluted interpretation that justifies murder. Me? I just think he's a sociopath, no different than Hitler, but that's just me.
    5) And, you close with your definition of what divides us...which made me want to PUKE. Here's the inside baseball, Bill. The Muslims that don't want to kill us, those fine folks are scared to death of the lunatics who do. They don't speak up, or take action, because under the twisted version of Islam that feeds the radical element, well it also justifies killing THEM. They may not agree with what a few have done in the name of their religion, but they sure as heck aren't going to break from the pack.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Part 2:1) You reference Wikipedia, ummm…EPIC FAIL. Thanks for playing, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
    2)Paragraph two, second post, you state that not all residents of Islamic countries are required in the Q'ran to be Muslim. The Q'ran goes to great lengths to define people. Because there is no seperation of church/stae in Islamic tradition, and all Muslims are charged with making the entire world Islamic, the Q'ran assumes that all people will be Muslim. The Imams of various countries now interpret and carry out the law as they see fit in modern times. The "literal" meaning of the text of an ancient document which is full of mystic cultural references is not something the average person can digest. And, just to be clear, Bill, since you are an expert, you have actually read the Q'ran? (*that's what I thought*) Don't fret, I'm sure Cliffs notes will be coming out with a version you can lecture us on soon.
    3) You draw a comparison between Muslims and 17 c. Christianity...ummm, Bill, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are plenty of Christian denominations that NEVER supported slavery. It was, in fact, British emperialism that spread slavery throughout the world as they conquered island nations and spread the empire throughout Africa and parts of Asia. As Britian emerged from the confines of post-Roman rule, there is clear historical evidence that by the mid 14 C, the church was NOT in support of slavery. Try again, Bill.
    4)In closing you offer this helpful suggestion, "but if there is a way to change the underlying worldview of the Muslims, then this is more likely to lead to a lasting peace..." (sic) Umm, I don't even know where to start. The world view of Muslims is accurate in the context of the cultures, Bill. "Change" of the world view doesn't create peace. Islamic nations are still fighting battles that took place (and were lost) under Ferdinand and Isabela. (Check your precious Wikipedia to read up on the Madrid bombings.) Don't impose on me a "change" that fundamentally negates my freedom to live and worship as I choose. The founders of this nation were quite specific, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," blah, blah, blah. There is no way to reconcile Islam with democracy or democratic republics. The two diverge at "hello."

    So, Bill, you might have guessed by now that my family lived in a Muslim country for the better part of 20 years...dang it, some of us even speak Arabic and Farsi. I know of what I speak from first hand knowledge. Of course it's not the same as your vast Wikipedia re-hash, but... I think what I'm trying to say is this: sit down and shut up. Find something you actually know about, and talk about that. Don't lecture the rest of us on things you know NOTHING about (haven't lived, haven't bothered to read beyond a cheesy online dictionary).
    As to Amir? (Going back to Destiny's original post...) Well, Amir is smart enough to know that his heritage could hurt his larger political aspirations. He's won a seat on the city council. He's gonna keep his little head down and look busy. He's gonna kiss a lot of babies, and shake hands with a lot of chicks. He's Muslim Light. He has to be.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Religious extremists of all flavors are certifiable.

    Voting for/against a candidate because of their religion is tribalism of the most pernicious type. We would prefer to associate that kind of thing with mud huts and open sewers but here we are.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I posted this looking for some insight, for someone to say, 'oh you silly, little white girl, you have it so wrong...' I posted this because I wanted someone to correct my thinking because it's obviously insane.

    ....so far I'm just as confused and uneasy about the Muslim faith as when I began...as tribal as that maybe, whatever, I'm just being honest. I came into this open minded and still am, but things aren't looking good.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Destiny, honey, thank you for posting this on your blog. One thing that my daddy always said was people will never agee on "politics" or "religion". And, well, this blog demonstrates this - and that's OK.

    As for Islam, that religion scares me to death. My family lived in a middle eastern county in the late 1970's and early 80's due to my husband's work, and I witnessed first hand the "wonderful things" that come with Islam - no freedom, rights, etc. When folks here talk about the importance of "accepting" Islam, they seem to act like they are asking Baptists to accept Methodist. WRONG. This religion, for all of the reason's mentioned above, is in direct opposition to all other world religions.

    This is one of several reason why I have railed against Amir Omar (aside from the fact he is a carpetbagger and has no knowledge of this city). Sure, he is Muslim "light", but he's STILL muslim; that's where his loyalties belong. The goal of Islam in America is to get that "foot hold" in a community. Well, task #1 accomplished.

    The sad part here is Chuck Eisemann and the Richardson Coalition, in their twisted determination to put Gary Slagel back as mayor, backed and funded Amir Omar. I agree with earlier postings when it was stated that they have sold the city down the river.

    ReplyDelete
  16. William J. 'Bill' McCalpinSeptember 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM

    I continue to be amazed that people who have never met me seem to know everything about me: my history, who I am, where I've lived, my educational background, the languages I speak, and so on.

    I don't say this to be argumentative, but so that you other readers can understand that this other poster isn't responding to what I actually said, but to what he/she thinks I said.

    Let's just take one example. The poster states that I said, "you tell us about how great it is for Jews living in Muslim countries."

    Of course, all of you realize that I didn't say that at all. I said, "You could plausibly argue that for many periods of history, Jews were better treated under Muslim rulers than under Christian ones."

    What I said is "Sometimes, A is true." The poster responded with "I can name a particular case in which A isn't true, therefore A is never true!" I trust all of you can easily see how this is faulty logic.

    In other cases, the poster simply makes statements that are not true. The comments that only Catholics forbid suicide is simply in error. All Western Christian churches (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox and others) share a common view of suicide arising out of the teachings of Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Yes, there is considerable variation on specific issues such as euthanasia, physician assisted suicides and the like, but that doesn't mean that the majority of Protestant churches don't disapprove of suicide in general. Look at what the original Protestant church says (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America): "As a church we affirm that deliberately destroying life created in the image of God is contrary to our Christian conscience. [this in a section on physician-assisted suicide]". At the other end of the Protestant spectrum, the chairman of the religion and philosophy department at Wayland Baptist University argues that suicide is not an "unpardonable" sin, but not that it's not a sin at all.

    As for personal comments about me, all they do is show how little the poster knows about me, and how desperately the poster wants to discredit me in your eyes in order to avoid the rest of you realizing that the poster was misquoting me in order to prove me "wrong".

    But the sad thing is that the poster is "disrespecting" Destiny herself when the poster inserts these personal attacks against me. Destiny asked a serious question, and there is no place here for personal attacks.

    Destiny, it's your blog - would you like to hear more serious discussion, or personal attacks?

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not only would I like to HEAR more personal attacks, I'd also like to SEE them... Preferably in some sort of kiddie pool and involving baby oil or mud perhaps.

    Now THAT would make for a fun blog post! Anonymous could even wear a mexican wrestling mask if they still wanted to conceal their identity.

    Oh the perverse, western fun....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, my - I'd be up for watching that, as long as it wasn't too risque. No bikinis or speedos, promise?!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bill -

    Thanks for taking the time to post in thread. You are doing a far better job me at staying reasonable and making sound arguments.


    Destiny -

    Perhaps the council meetings could be done in those lucha libre masks. That would rock.

    ReplyDelete
  20. bloggermouse, that sounds risque - I might watch the webcast. Would it have some kind of PG-rating?

    ReplyDelete