ANSWERS ABOUT ISLAM SERIES - Summary of Parts 1 – 4 - By HJS

As you probably have guessed by now by reviewing the past four parts of the "Answers" series, Islam is not necessarily the easiest religion to understand from the Christian or Jewish point of view. At least part of the reason for this is as Dr. Carl Goldberg, (ideologyofislam@cox.net), would say, it is also an ideology as well as a religion. So far, we have looked into some aspects of the religion itself and will continue to do so; however, from this point on one can expect some ideology to surface which may change the characterization of some “religious” ideas from relatively innocuous to unacceptable or worse from our point of view. We will see.

At Mecca in the early days of Islam, Muhammad tried to interest the Meccans, polytheists, into the belief in one God and to curb their drinking, fighting among themselves, gambling, and a few other vices. At Mecca, he had the time to develop a religion and try to make it palatable to more than just a few Meccans. Had the Meccans largely accepted monotheism and gone with the new Islam, perhaps the religion would have a different aspect than it has today. As it happened, the Meccans did not accept the new religion and tried to kill Muhammad; he and his relatively few believers had to leave in haste. He had already accepted the invitation of another city, Yathrib, who had lots of tribes, lots of problems, and no leadership, administrators, or abitrators. Thus began a new and very important chapter in the life of Muhammad and in Islam.

In Yathrib, later renamed for him--Medinat al Nabi (City of the Prophet)--he quickly became head of government as well as judge. But Muhammad was still building a new religion and was very concerned with spreading Islam and defeating Mecca, although it was also important that he build better relations with the richer Jewish tribes in the area. Once ensconced in Yathrib/Medina, he found new problems, problems about ruling and administration, an office for which he had had no training or experience, and these problems had to be solved quickly. Muhammad, of course, was a man of religion, not of the ruling class, and saw administrative problems in the light of his religion, thus solving each problem with one or more religious edicts, "revelations from Allah" and not civil statutes or the like. Civil violations became sins against Allah.

I must point out that the Muslims fervently believe that the Qur'an was authored by Allah and not man, and that it was told to Muhammad, verse by verse over several years. Muhammad, in turn, recited each verse to others right away to create the human database which finally became the written Qur'an (The Recitation) long after his death. The search for, review, and compilation of the Qur'an are themselves the subjects of other interesting books.

It became necessary at one point of his administration at Yathrib to raid rich Meccan caravans in order to feed the many more mouths that arrived from Mecca--the families of the Muslims that had fled that city. Yathrib had welcomed Muhammad to solve their quarrels, but they were not prepared for the influx of so many more people. Many Muslims and people from Medina did not look favorably upon raiding caravans or otherwise fighting a war against strong Mecca, so it became necessary for revellations to turn these actions into religious or holy wars instead of just raiding parties.

So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (8:69)
O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (66:9)

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward - (4:95)

In these revealed verses, Allah railed against people who would not fight, letting them know that He is highly displeased with such disloyalty. On the other hand, the revellations promised much booty to those who fought and survived, and to those who were killed while fighting, their families would get their shares. Meanwhile, the dead fighters would be considered martyrs and thus would not have to wait for the end-time, the Day of Judgment, but would be welcomed into Paradise immediately--you know the rest. For the Muslims, that was not a bad deal--to be waited on hand-and-foot by 72 houris who remained virgins forever, despite whatever activity they engaged in with their holy martyrs. The younger Muslims, who had not the income or assets to marry and who could not even look at a woman until marriage, let alone date one, found themselves eagerly anticipating raids and battles. With the spoils, they could marry and have kids, if they were killed, well, sometimes it was difficult to know which was better. On the other hand, Allah had nothing but contempt for those who would not fight, contribute, or otherwise support the efforts now considered jihad!

The Qur'an revellations from Medina told the story of hatred for Meccans, who were alternately referred to as polytheists and unbelievers and idolaters. Muslims were commanded to "kill them wherever you find them." In the Medina area were also Jewish tribes and even a few uncooperative Muslims he called "hypocrites." Muhammad called upon a rich Jewish tribe and announced himself as the final prophet. The tribe included scholars of Hebrew scriptures whose lives were dedicated to the study of these scriptures. A verbal battle, followed by a plethora of revealed Quranic verses ensued that created a wound between Islam and Judaism that has not healed in all of these centuries.

O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] usages, saying "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allah intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah . Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. (5:41)

The Meccans found out quickly that no matter how many untrained fighters they put in the field, the trained Muslims fighting for Allah and martyrdom were too fierce and to ready to die to overcome. Eventually, they decided on a truce that established peace between them, but they never heard the Roman dictum "If you wish peace, prepare for war." They trusted the treaty, but were surprised by the Muslim armies and were caught completely unprepared. Mecca was now in the Muslim camp.

So, many of the verses read by Muslims today are the same exhortations recited by Muslims in the seventh century against the unbelievers (Meccans) and polytheists (Meccans), but now applied in exactly the same sense against Western nations, especially against Israel and the United States. Muslims believe Christians are now the polytheists because of their Trinity; idolators because of their fondness for statues of the saints; and both Christians and Jews are unbelievers to be "killed wherever they are found" because they have not accepted Islam. As I said in Part 1, everyone has been given the opportunity to accept Islam:

Many believe that the Qur’an, Hadiths (words of Muhammad), and Sunna (life of Muhammad) have been assembled and printed and made available to all humanity. Because of this, all people are responsible for knowing these documents and conducting their lives in accordance with them and with the Sharia, Islamic Law-- whether they accept it or not. Therefore, no matter where we live and who we are, Americans, Europeans, Africans, etc, if we are not living as Muslims, they believe we are violating their/our laws and thus subject to the prescribed penalties—most often, death.

To summarize the four parts within this new aspect, starting with the first, we have seen that CAIR and other not-so-innocent groups supporting Islam have continually harangued us with the description of Islam as “The Religion of Peace.” All of this activity seems designed to calm whatever fears we would have about such open belligerence and to cover up the real problems and intentions of Islamists. We are enduced to believe that the religion has been hijacked. As I showed in Part 1, the word Islam does not mean “peace”, but “submission.” If Pro-Islamist groups want us to believe that Islam means "peace", there must be a reason. Let us look at a supposition. If our government (perish the thought) were to continually suppress us with laws that take away our individual freedoms, burden us with daily obligations that take time away from free time, and beat us, maim us, or kill us for minor infractions, some of which have no criminal aspect (blasphemy, apostasy, disobeying parents) it would not reach to the level of a humane or a peaceful government; we would be obligated to rebel against such tyranny. But if we did not rebel, but simply submitted to the tyranny and became obedient, uncomplaining servants, things would certainly be peaceful. But it is we that would be peaceful, not the government. As John Kerry might say, it is a nuance that must be cleared up.

As long as I am clearing things up a little, our spelling of Arabic names might be a little more standardized if some folks knew that they will not find the vowels O or E, nor the consonant P in Arabic. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Arabs would not themselves name a land or area with a letter they do not have and do not pronounce normally (such as: Palestine). It is a little thing, but sometimes a nuisance.

With respect to the way we dress that I talked about in Part 1, I also talked about the Muslim new dressup potential in Part 4, showing that in some countries the ulama (council of religious scholars) relented somewhat and allowed color and elegance to become part of women’s dress. Now that some European women and American women have found themselves converting to Islam, black-and-white may have grown old and unappealing to the eye, and possibly the spirit. Humans did not invent trees and flowers, and their colors certainly are not ungodly. True beauty can be admired without breaking any commandments of Christianity or Islam. Admiration and appreciation should never be sins per se. Whenever a student brought a girfriend into our Yale cafeteria, and she was nice looking, every male student in the cafeteria would rise in unison and applaud such pulchritude. I believe they still do that today. Would that be cause for a bomb or other device in retribution for the attention? If one thinks it is, one needs to re-program. Something tells me that women, except for those who prefer to remain shadows, may not stop with just color, especially if some of the ulama are replaced with arch-conservative puritans whose minds are still locked in the seventh century. If some people want to remain there, fine; however, they should not have the authority to keep others languishing there with them unwillingly. Not too many women will want to regress. If there is a reformation in Islam perhaps it will come from the women who have grown tired of the inequity their men call "equality". The men-only cliques have kept the lid on their no-reformation community for centuries now. Will we ever see some movement? Yes, possibly, if the women decide they have had enough.

In Part 2 I talked about prayer in Islam. On the surface, prayer is usually a good idea and almost everyone would encourage it. However, in the Sacred Law you will find 111 pages delineating exactly how prayers must be done, especially in mosque. In our parochial schools they taught us many different prayers for different occasions; however, they always insisted that we do most of our praying alone, in our own words. If I were responsible for knowing and following 111 pages of technical guidance on prayer, I would be in deep trouble. Islam's Sacred Law, section f1.4 states:

“A Muslim who holds prayer to be obligatory but through lack of concern neglects to perform it until its proper time is over has not committed unbelief.
Rather he is executed, washed and prayed over, and buried in a Muslim cemetery. It is recommended, but not obligatory, that he be asked to repent; if he does, he is not executed.”

When I think of how many times on Sunday morning, after a great Saturday night, some of us just didn’t want to take the time for church, knowing the game would start before the service had ended. Many of us would be in deep trouble.

By the way, about ablutions (wudu and Ghusl), in the law there are 51 pages devoted to how it must be performed to be valid. Prayers are not valid if one is not in a state of purity. Whenever a person performs the ablutions 1,825 times per year before prayers, and those ablutions must be performed according to the book and as a matter of law, the person has to love what he or she is doing. If it is not love, then what else would it be if not fear of consequences? Indeed, one can love one's religion without wanting to hurt another human being, no matter what is written.

So up to this point, how do you suppose a knowledgeable person would feel about trusting our Democrat majority with the authority to sign on to the Shariah if it came to that? This eventuality is something that must be considered each election. As I mentioned in this Part, Europe is rapidly losing its own culture because of the inability of the European Liberals to understand or withstand Islam. Some have also looked the other way on polygamy and familial honor killing. Some leaders do not understand and do not care that they don't understand. As you can see, there is a lot to know and it takes a little time--unless you have counselors you can trust! CAIR is not one of them. Neither is the administration when it talks about a "Religion of Peace" and surrounds itself with Wahhabi puritans. The Liberals here may embrace the Shariah as a wonderful way to show how liberal they are—without even looking at it! If that ever comes up, we should arise as a nation and crush that bug quickly. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has something to say about the Shariah and women.

The Five Pillars of Faith in Part 3 have been the platform for the Muslims since Islam began, three of the pillars since before Islam began. Some folks in Islam continue to try to insert jihad as a Pillar, but the ulama has remained steadfast in not doing so. Jihad, at least the major sense of the word is to put forth effort in becoming a better person and more learned Muslim. But the other meaning of jihad has the most concern for us: holy war!

Part 4 of the series introduced the Shariah for the first time, although I left out the portions that specified which parts of the body could be amputated for theft. Depending on the situation, someone could lose the right hand and left foot for a first time occurrence. I trust I need not go further. On radio, I did mention that an eight-year-old boy was sentenced to have his arm run over by a car for stealing food; the sentence was supposed to be lenient because of the boy's age. Unbelievable? I don’t blame you; however, here are the story and photos. A teenager was hanged in Iran for defending herself from being raped in this report. And another was hanged for being raped and abused in this report, click here. Note that they were not allowed counsel. If two single people are caught in a tryst, both, according to the law, are to receive 100 lashes each. If one is married, that one is usually stoned to death according to (o12.2) or however the state provides. Iran has chosen hanging, but the parents could elect to publicly stone their offspring. Iran's hanging, by the way, is not humane, but slow strangulation as a crane lifts the condemned upward a considerable distance.

Before we end the summary, please notice in Part 4 that according to the law, a man could kill his wife and his children and grandchildren without consequences. That is what Muslims call “honor killings.” It doesn't mean they are honorable events, it simply means that the child or spouse has brought "dishonor" to the family by doing something other than what the father/husband has commanded. If the child simply says “No, I am not going to marry that old man,” that could be a death sentence. Or if a teenager is found to have a boyfriend who is not a Muslim—she will not survive her family’s finding her. Read more about honor killings here. It was not very long ago I reported a young girl murdered for marrying a man not of her father's choosing, and then the father immediately afterwards murdered his three younger daughters (aged 4, 8, and 12) because he did not want any such dishonor from them when they grew up. The three little girls were totally innocent of anything. The older girl, simply married for love. Loving grandparents are carrying things too far when they grab a granddaughter behind the parents' back and mutilate her (circumcision) despite the parents’ wishes and the child dies in the process—no consequences. That is not what I call "tough love." In some countries, other laws can parallel the Shariah, some of them are what is left from colonial laws; so people can be arrested for killing their children, but not treated as a criminal once the rationale is explained.

As far as apostasy is concerned, if you are a Methodist today and a Lutheran tomorrow, then move to a nice, friendly Southern town and become a Baptist, there is no big deal. Nobody cares. Nor should one care or even know about it. Not so with Islam. Did you notice in Part 4's sharia that just about anyone can kill an apostate without consequences? Before this nation of ours gets any further down the road of human relations and alliances, wouldn't it be prudent to urge the United Nations or any organization dedicated to Human Rights, to ban that type of law from the face of the earth—and enforce that ban? Wouldn't it be advisable that Europe and the Americas should make recognition and UN membership contingent upon the absence of such penalties for leaving or changing religions? Shouldn't we have a universal ban on killing children? Seems to me that is much more important than global warming.

Is a cemetery a place of peace?

HJS