5 posts tagged “muslim”

As some of you know, i am a confirmed Catholic, and have chosen also to raise my children in the church. Nevertheless, my heart is at all times with all believers in the last Day, Hebrews, Christians, and Muslims. Indeed, with all believers in good will. There is also something which I feel unites us all under these faiths, and that is the way we should greet one another. "Peace be with you", "Shalom", "Salaam". In the eastern traditions, this custom is also nurtured with Namaste or Sawaadieka. Yet how many of us have fallen into the modern trap of thinking that these greetings are "uncool" or "so not done"? In my experience, it is my Muslim brothers and sisters in God who remain most faithful to this beautiful tradition of greeting one another "in remembrance of Allah".

Having never learned more than the opening prayer in Arabic and not having learned to read Arabic, I am often at a loss as to how to properly greet other believers. I recall being told by one disturbed person that "no one says peace anymore (I will spare you the rest of what he said about me)", I decided to research this greeting of "(God's) peace be with you" and found these notations written by Adil Salahi 03/01/2003

Synthetic religion

It is true, there is no compulsion in religion. This means only one thing, and should not be confused with the idea we can invent religions of our own, accepting some texts, and rejecting others in support of a religion of convenience. "No compulsion" means no one is forced to accept a way of life prescribed to us (believers) by the Law as described in the Holy books of the Bible or in the Quran. But there are also ample warnings by clearly written verses, and by the examples of Jesus, and the prophets, about how we should worship and how we should resolve the many questions we will face in our short lives. If we are believers, we have to accept the texts in their entirety. If there is confusion, we should seek answers through rational course and by returning to the Holy Scriptures, in consultation with one another and with those who have authority and training. No door should be closed in the pursuit of truth. We must as believers, keep an open mind. If in the scripture, something  is forbidden and something else is encouraged, we have to seek an understanding about that text. We may not exclude it or seek to diminish it's value because it doesn't fit in with our overall "religion" or way of life. This is like the scientist that rejects a certain finding, in order to promote his own theory and to profit in some way personally through this kind of "half science". We all know the evolutionists and their half-science, but that is perhaps for another posting. Those who are blessed will understand and accept the teaching, others will continue blindly, with a "half-faith/half-reject religion".

For Christians, Jesus is a liberator from this blindness and spiritual starvation. Religions (or a way of life which we regard as Holy or acceptable to God) that suit our desires or our own perceptions about God and our relation to him, are to be avoided if we are to reach salvation. This is according to God's law. Wisdom is needed, and Wisdom begins with Fear of God. To know His greatness, is to fear Him. We see in the scriptures many examples of nations being led astray by their own desires. Nations which began to engage in atrocities, and found arguments to support their way of thinking and whatever pleased them. Then God each time would send a prophet with warnings which only a few heeded. At other times, God was forced to intervene by punishing mankind.

When Jesus started his work in the synagogues (not as a child, but after the 40 day temptation when he returned to Galilee and Nazareth), it is told to mankind in the Gospel of Luke (4:14-30), that Jesus' presence was at first applauded, then after a short time, the people in the place where he was raised, turned around and rebuked him for what he had taught them. From this scripture, i learn that:

• Jesus based his teaching on the Holy texts, accepting them in their entirety. Jesus accepted the text given to him by the attendant in  the synagogue (Luke 4:17). Jesus did not seek out a special text for himself, but accepted it from another's hand. The choice is not up to us about what to accept and what to reject. This puts to rest the idea that no compulsion in religion, implies that it is permissible to edit the Holy texts. Jesus also makes it clear that He did not come to rewrite the law or to erase any of it*.
  
• The basis of Jesus' purpose was to bring Good News to those who were suffering from spiritual starvation and ignorance (Jesus read from Isaiah as told in Luke 4:18)
• People at first accepted Jesus' authority as a teacher, and one who was qualified to interpret the Holy Scriptures (Luke 4:22)
• People then rejected Jesus. Jesus surprised the listeners in the synagogue by saying he would not put one group of people above another by performing miracles at their will. They had to accept the Holy scriptures as the only supreme power, not their own free wills. People considered perhaps they were special because they were born in the same town as He had been. Merely because they were of the same descent, they were not special people, and Jesus showed them some examples of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, who had aided only a few people, and in the instances Jesus mentioned, those who were favored by miraculous deeds were in fact foreigners to both prophets.
• Then they tried to kill Jesus (Luke 4:29) but Jesus escaped unharmed.
  

We are made in God's image, and His religion has been clearly laid out in the texts for us as a guidance. Though many people may dispute the authenticity or the authority of the various texts and personalities in the texts, those who believe, accept the texts in their entirety. Jesus said: "occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause  one of these little ones to stumble" (Luke 17: 1-2). And in the Gospel according to Mathew (5:17-20) Jesus states plainly, that the Law should be obeyed to the letter:

(Mathew 5: 17) Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill*

About which texts are to be included in the Holy Bible? For Christians, this is a difficult call, because the inclusion of one text and the exclusion of another is disputed even today. I accept that God will guide his Church. But some are not convinced. For Muslims, there is less confusion, accepting as they do, all the texts that came before the message revealed and recorded in the Holy Quran. For this reason, i believe that those who follow Islam (Muslims) are indeed blessed among the believing family. Christians are especially challenged, as too are Jews, as their "religions" often serve up many contradictions. The scholars call on them to accept part of the text, and to deny the relevance of other texts or prophets. By God's grace and for our sakes, the three faiths (the sons and daughters of Abraham) ) are on the right path, and the truth is ultimately available to all who yearn for it. Christians will be challenged as to why certain parts of the Law are ignored. In my case, i resolve this in my personal way by a logical course. The  history of the various Christian denominations and those of the various Muslim and Judaic school of thought, are complex for the novice seeker of truth. There are of course many pitfalls, but i proceed in faith, seeking God's guidance always in this pursuit, and weeding out, my own personal motivations as far as i am aware at any given time.

*Jesus and the Law:
Jesus said; "But woe to you pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others." (Luke 10: 42).
Jesus rebuked people for having ignored the Law before John the Baptist and then since He had begun preaching, the same who had ignore the Law, now attempted frantically to use the Law as a  proof before others, of their righteousness:
"(Luke 16: 16) The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then teh good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force". Jesus went on to say that none of the laws had been erased:
(Luke 16: 17) "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in law to be dropped."
(Mathew 5:18) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
(Mathew 5:19) Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Many people seek to find justification for their religions they invent and they cite the examples were Jesus deliberately challenged onlookers by shocking them when he did not follow the Law to the letter. People use this as a justification for disregarding the Law entirely themselves. One who does this, should be cautious because whenever Jesus did this, he used the opportunity to point out that the people of his day, practiced the law without their hearts in their actions. He rebuked them for paying only lip service to the Law and for failing to understand the real import of the Law. I would go further charge that those people are actually abusing the verses today, and what is worse, they have the audacity to place themselves on a par with Jesus. Jesus in His wisdom, did everything for a purpose, and as a preamble to a parable.

About this post:
My humble and unschooled effort here is done in the hope that i have not made an error in interpreting the Bible or any other text. It is done in God's name, and to His Glory only. May God forgive me if i have done any wrong in doing so.

The article leads with this statement:

One of the most durable features of the U.S. culture is the inability or refusal to recognize U.S. crimes.

The statement ends with this relevant observation:

imperial terrorism inevitably produces retail terrorist responses; that the urgent need is the curbing of the causal force, which is the rampaging empire.

In short, the much disliked yet apt words of brother Malcolm concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy remain true today:

a case of chicken coming home to roost

Moreover, apart from seeing their own violence turned on themselves,
Americans are paying the price for:

• their acquiescence of the fraudulent process which ushered in the current US presidency,
• their acquiescence of the assaults on freedoms which were instituted subsequent to Bush's election
• their acquiescence of the obvious deceptions created and then used as pre-texts for the military interventions
  
• their acquiescence of the abuses of the media meant to incite fear, then hatred
  
• their acquiescence of the illegal wars which are being waged today
• their acquiescence of the abuses at secret torture camps including but not exclusive to Guantanamo
  
• their acquiescence of the continued support for the criminal entity occupying Palestine

Sadly, we are all victims of this rampaging empire and we will all pay the price for inaction.

In the humble opinion of this blogger, this is more than natural. It is self-serving and it is obstinant. Another blogger noted that the Holy Quran mentions how the enemies of God will never accept the believers, until [the believers] embrace [the non-believers'] religion (identical in the translation to "way of life"). The Holy Bible mentions something similar in the book of Proverbs and elsewhere, I believe. We must in effect show our allegiance to the great satan by our wanton and obstinant embrace of death, violence, destruction, symbols of allegiance, if you will. Refusal to open one's mind to allow rational considerations into our thinking and our actions, is surely sinful at best, and dangerous at worst. For it prevents our God from using us as instruments in His correction of the wrongs of others.

i would expect this posting could be classified as "hate speech" in less democratic nations. Frankly speaking, i couldn't care less if it is. let me say only that i don't hate anyone, i just don't support some people's choices, and i reserve the right to say so. if and when those choices begin to affect my own life and the life of my family, then my voice will become louder. the right to speak out and to do what i can to establish a community in line with my values, is non-negotiable. if it is not too much to ask for, let those who agree with me also be heard. of course, we have a long way to go before people begin to speak without fear. but let us make a start. open the can of worms so to speak.

Nigeria's Anglican congregation, is second in size only to Britain's. That is news to me. News.24.com carried a report in 2003 in which the typical African opinion was expressed concerning people who choose to engage in homosexual practices:

The primate of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter Akinola, has described the appointment of gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex marriage as "a Satanic attack" on the church.

More recently, (News.24 URL http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2162306,00.html)

Abuja - Eighteen men face charges of sodomy in a Nigerian Islamic court after authorities arrested them as they prepared to take part in a gay marriage, state media reported.

On Tuesday (August 21st, 2007), Ugandan's staged a protest calling for tougher measures by police against people who choose to engage in this particular sexual deviance, actions which are banned in the conservative Christian country. The protest seems in part to have been triggered, by a press conference held by sexual deviants (known as smug) a few days before. The protesters also took the opportunity to object to a report made by the US intern Katherine Roubos in the Daily Monitor, in which she dealt with the experiences of people who choose the homosexual lifestyle in Uganda. The newspaper is owned by Aga Khan, currently visiting East Africa. The Daily Monitor intern has denied campaiging for people who choose a gay lifestyle, saying she was simply doing her job:

I was assigned a story by the editor and I did it objectively. My job is to report on events, not my personal opinions

Notwithstanding the conservative views of Africans, some religious leaders, seeking to impress upon the world  their allegiance to an idea of modernity perhaps at best,  or to satan at worst, continue to insult Africans. In South Africa, conservative religious views are also ignored by the church leadership who is increasingly out of step with political, moral, and generally most social and economic realities in Azania and Africa at large. A major part of this scenario is coloured perhaps by an ingrained racism, even self hatred, which disregards Africans as backward, seeing them as needing to be led, cajoled, and if need be, whipped into a world of modernity.

In a letter to Southern Africa's Anglican Archbishop Ndungane, Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria said:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/10519

What you cited as top priorities are in this context clearly misplaced. I ask, are the issues of peace, hunger, shari'a, and HIV/AIDS, serious and prevalent, as they are, more important to the Church than faithfulness to the plain truth of Scripture?

Ugandans are rightly making some much needed noise on this issue, but they may be missing the point just a bit. Far more damage is being done by media outlets across the continent and no doubt inside Uganda as well. It may be easier to attack the Daily Monitor and it's staff, yet the real culprits are left smiling. The Daily Monitor report may just be the straw that breaks the camels back, yet i would venture to say, the camel needs a back breaking.

Aga Khan's visit is more significant however. He will officiate at the inauguration of the Bujagali hydro-power dam, a multi-national project supported by the World Bank. The Bujagali project will bring many opportunities to Uganda (Mail & Guardian, Azania), and it also symbolises in itself, new alliances and prospects for development. My strange personality smells a rat once again. Our progress as Africans is often hampered by outside influences, who see benefits in sowing division. The Daily Monitor is carrying other significant stories at the moment, yet this one report has become the cause perhaps, of many Ugandans setting the newspaper aside as an unreliable tabloid.

After reading Roubos' report, the mention of so called abuse and oppression and referring to people who choose this lifestyle with the term "gay and lesbian" seems to suggest that the reporter was perhaps out of step with African sentiments. Being American, such errors are to be expected. In Africa, (the topic being taboo from Nigeria and Ghana to Uganda and Azanian) most of us do not consider this to be abuse or oppression at all. Neither do we consider that such people are a natural category of humans, as is the popular belief in some western societies. The term criminal would suffice instead of "gay and lesbian". Roubos should have worded her report differently, and perhaps spoken more in terms of preventing inhuman treatment of those who choose to violate Ugandan law.

Those interested in reading more about the Anglican communion in particular, may wish to visit a blog entitled BOLIVIANBEAT : Building bridges, engaging Truth

p.s.

I would have liked to post this article in the "Gay group" at vox, unfortunately i have been banned from the group for some reason. My hope is that the post reaches the audience it is intended for. The view that this issue is a closed one, is unfounded. Let it be known there are many voices in places where there exist no restrictions on the expression of opposition to this issue as is the case in less democratic western societies where certain views are seen as hate speech.

Expressing these views puts one at risk of losing some alliances and some friends in the process, yet it is any person or community's God-given right to decide it's own course of action, according to it's own values. The fact i am an African, fundamentalist Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or any other number of labels shouldn't make my view any less valid.