There is no fundamental Islam. "Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
How biased is this statement? Well, first off, the definition of fundamentalism is A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by
rigid adherence to those principles, and often by
intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. Now, first of all, if the author of this article had any idea what the Quran says, he would know that Islam requires us to adhere to strict religious principles (five pillars of Islam), but Im guessing he either 1) doesnt know about that, or 2) decided to leave that little bitty minor detail out, right?
Second, if there is fundamental Christianity, then is he saying that Christians are intolerant to other religions? If so, then he just contradicted himself. He also says the question is how the Koran is interpreted. That right there should tell you that this entire article is based on
his own personal interpretation of the Quran. As Ill show you throughout this post, the author of this article is basically giving his own personal opinion about the religion of Islam, and using facts from the Quran most of which he twists the wording in order to make these facts fit/support his argument, or he just decides to leave a lot of details out.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
How are they the greatest interpreters of Islam? Do they follow the religion? No. All they do is supposedly read and study the Quran, yet they do not adhere to the rules, nor do they live in the culture, nor do they dedicate their lives to memorizing the Quran and spreading the good word of Allah to the younger generations of Muslims.
The Language of Islam You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.
Alright, so the guy says that we cannot speak and/or describe Islam using our own (Western) terminology and language, right? He just proved my last point and proved this entire article to be completely pointless.
Driving Principles of Islam Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem. But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
Does the author have a problem with the fact that us Muslims must acknowledge and believe that there is only one God and that Mohammad (pbuh) is his prophet? If that is indeed the case, then does he have a problem with the fact that Christians believe in God and Jesus Christ? Also, if this guy ever even took the time to read the Quran he would realize that the teachings of the Quran are similar to the teachings of the Bible. Obviously, not everything will be exactly the same, but for the most part the teachings are similar to one another. But I guess this guy doesnt realize that considering he probably never actually took the time to sit down and read the Quran
But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.
Oh look how cute, the author once again fails to realize that the rules set forth by the Quran to guide the Muslim way of life also lead to salvation. Yet just another example of his lack of knowledge about the Quran and the religion of Islam.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
Alright, this guy really comes off as a complete hypocrite here. So, is he saying that Islam does not believe that mankind was created to uphold the image of God? Again if he had actually read the Quran, he would understand how stupid he sounds. Then he goes on to say that throughout history there were times that people twisted the words in the Bible to fit their own personal agendas, and used this to justify their wars and massacres yet as a whole both Judaism and Christianity uphold and honor the image of God, correct? So please explain to me how you can sit there and say that despite certain instances throughout history in which certain individuals or groups of people used the Bible to justify their evil intentions, Christianity and Judaism as a whole are still upholding the honor and the image of God yet when there are only a few Islamic extremists (in comparison to the total number of Muslims in the world today) that twist the words of the Quran to justify their evil intentions, the entire religion of Islam and their followers are labeled as evil? Is EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM carrying out acts of terrorism? No Can you say double standard? I wonder why
The Essence of Islam Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
Completely false. In reality, Islam was not born with the idea of ruling the world, rather the idea that the author twists to fit his purpose of degrading the Islamic religion is that Islam is the final religion that God sent down and will ever send down, and thus will eventually become the biggest religion in the world in terms of the number of followers.
Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems. Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
The author has some of this right to an extent. Yes, Islam does teach us to recognize all the prophets that were sent down by God before Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Now, what the author twists is the idea that all the previous prophets were Muslims. Read the second to last sentence in the first quoted paragraph, and he pretty much contradicts the purpose of writing that whole section, and will prove my point. We view all the prophets as being sent down by Allah to share the same message to the world. All the teachings in the religions that were sent down are similar in their core message, and that is why they are viewed as being Muslims. Islam recognizes Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., all as independent religions, and we as Muslims also recognize these as religions we dont deny their existence, nor are we taught to degrade their teachings and fundamental principles.
The Bible vs. the Koran Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
What the author fails to mention is that we believe that the books of Judaism and Christianity were slowly changed by their followers, and therefore were not as pure as the Quran which is one of the reasons that Allah sent down the religion of Islam. We do not believe in destroying every other religion by the force of war, however we do believe in trying to spread the true word of Islam and trying to make the other religions pure again in terms of trying to get them to revert back to what their books originally stated which would be exactly what is in the Quran, as the author mentions.Now, as far as the last quoted paragraph goes, how is that any different from the religious intolerance of countries throughout history? America was the first country to stress religious freedom almost every other country in history prior to Americas existence required you to either practice their religion (thereby denying the existence of your own religion) or live under the laws of their religion. Islam did not force Christians and Jews living in Islamic countries to deny the existence of Christianity, Judaism, etc. Hell, if Islam was so intolerant of other religions, why would there be churches, synagogues and temples in Islamic countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few) to this day?
Islamic Rule and Jihad What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.
Again, another false statement spread not only by the author, but by the entire American media about the concept of Islamic Jihad. Jihad is not only a physical war against those who oppress the religion; rather there are 5 types of Jihad:<ul>[*]
Jihad of the heart/soul (
jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.[*]
Jihad by the tongue (
jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), and political or military propaganda.[*]
Jihad by the pen and knowledge (
jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for a good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences [*]
Jihad by the hand (
jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.[*]
Jihad by the sword (
jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).[/list]Now, before everybody starts saying oh, look, it still says by military force! and all that stuff realize that the Quran teaches us to invite followers of other religions to learn about the religion through our methods of teaching (i.e. reading and studying the Quran, etc.), and we are only allowed to use military force IF another religion declares a holy war against our prophet (pbuh) and his message and initiates the fight. Dont believe me? Read these quotes from notable Islamic scholars around the world:
Ramadan Buti, a contemporary Orthodox scholar from Syria, in his work on the subject
Jihad in Islam says: Even before Muhammad conducted Jihad by sword against the unbelievers, there is no doubt the Prophet (s) invited these unbelievers peacefully, lodged protests against their beliefs and strove to remove their misgivings about Islam. When they refused any other solution, but rather declared a war against him and his message and initiated the fight, there was no alternative except to fight back"
Imam al-Dardir in his book
Aqarab al-Maslik says: Jihad is propagating the knowledge of the Divine Law commending right and forbidding wrong. He emphasized that it is not permitted to skip this category of Jihad and implement the combative form, saying, "the first [Islamic] duty is to call people to enter the fold of Islam, even if they had been preached to by the Prophet (s) beforehand."
Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, NY, defines three levels of jihad personal, verbal and physical. (Ill only put about the physical because that is what the author of the article was talking about, but if you are interested, just tell me and Ill post what he says about the other two forms as well): <ul>[*] Physical Jihad: This relates to the use of physical force in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. Allah commands that Muslims lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone. If they are persecuted and oppressed, the Qur'an recommends that they migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land: "Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (2:218). If relocation is not possible, then Allah also requires Muslims to defend themselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." 2 The Qur'an states: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory."[/list]
Now, to comment on the first bolded idea in the quote above, consider this: Would Israeli?s really accept that they were being ruled over by Muslims? No, they most certainly wouldn?t? so then why does he have a problem if the Muslims feel the same way? Is he trying to say that Israeli?s are superior to Muslims? If so? he is basically exhibiting the same feelings that the Muslims over there feel, yet because his countrymen are ruling, it is alright for him to feel that way and not for the Muslims to feel that way? So, if the Muslims over there were to reclaim that territory by force, would he and his countrymen say ?ah, you know what, they won it fair and square? let them keep it and rule over us.? No? they wouldn?t. Once again, he shows how hypocritical he is. It is human nature to feel that way.Now, in the final paragraph, he calls for America and Europe to aid Israel, and for Christians to aid the Jews in an attempt to ?defend? themselves and rid the Muslims. Is he not advocating a holy war in that sense? Again? Islam is ?evil? because less than 5% of the world?s Muslim are twisting the religion to justify their false sense of ?Jihad,? and the entire Islamic religion is being viewed as evil. However, the author himself is advocating a holy war, yet that is alright? :HAHAHA: Wow? I?m sorry, but this author and the article is a complete joke. You can find articles like these all over the place, for both sides, yet you yourself have to be willing to take the initiative and seek the truth. You want the truth? Read the Quran. This article is a great example of propaganda.Anyway, I don?t really expect to change people?s views about our religion with this post, but the fact of the matter is that I felt compelled to respond to this outrageous article that insulted me and my religion.
