Muslims Should Condemn Muslim Violence

Nice article. Let the Muslim communiy be clear about what is 'violence' and what is terrorism.

From Jihad Watch:

While Muslim groups have issued vague condemnations of "terrorism" and the killing of "innocent civilians," they have never bothered to define who exactly is an innocent civilian, despite the fact that jihadists have claimed that Israelis and, in some cases, Americans and Britons are neither innocent nor civilians. Yet despite the fact that there is no global network of Jewish or Christian terrorists committing violence in the name of either religion and justifying that violence by referring to its sacred texts, and Christian and Jewish leaders have quickly condemned violent acts committed by Christians and Jews, without vagueness or weasel words, the idea that all three religions are equally likely to inspire violence persists.

Comments

SocietyVs said…
This is also my stand - a responsioble god-fearing/god-loving/god-worshipping Muslim should look to stand against these conditions of violence within their religion (which never seems to be the case). It is their religion - if they want to truly find a god they can worhip within theor scriptures - they need to stand against the infidel's within theor religion first (that beam in their eye) then move outwards.
Abu Daoud said…
Yes, but remember that the idea of "remove the beam from your own eye first..." is a CHRISTIAN idea. It is not part of the Muslim ethos at all.

It is, in fact, the other way around: look for the fault in others first--avoid at all costs looking at the fault of Muslims...
SocietyVs said…
Yeah Abu that may be the case right now...that doesn't mean we can't get into discussions that move Muslims closer to true responsibility for their belief system. Just maybe they will see our use of the idea 'beam in the eye' is quite beneficial - and that church and state seperation is the only way a faith can truly thrive (without violence).
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
Muslim leaders have issued condemnations of and fatwas against terrorism, violence, suicide bombings, and militant jihad that are very explicitly clear as to why these are severe violations of Islam, why, how and where they violate the Qur'an, who is never to be touched, even in time of war, and that the conditions do not exist for Muslims to engage in any militant jihad or any war. You can find approximately 4,200 of these at http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com

I would strongly suggest questioning everything you read on jihadwatch. I have spent the last year analyzing jihadwatch and Robert Spencer, and have found them to be highly and consistently inaccurate. By the end of June, there will be an expose on why Jihadwatch is so consistently inaccurate, specifically showing how and where, on http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com
Sharon M said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Abu Daoud said…
Society:

That is my hope as well.

Rev Jim:

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that some of the material at Jihad Watch is not helpful. I do think that this particular issue is very important though. I mean, it is very easy to condemn "unjustified violence" without clarifying that killing Israeli children is in fact justified according to most Muslims. We need specificity, that is what the Muslim leaders have not supplied.
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
If you go to http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com , you will find over 4,200 Muslim political and religious leaders, theologians, philosophers, imams, mullahs, association leaders, teachers, authors, journalists and others worldwide who have condemned terrorism, violence, suicide bombing, and militant jihad. Many have issued very detailed, very specific condemnations, citing exactly why and how the jihadists' claims are wrong and are a violation of the Qur'an and the hadiths. The site contains a long list of fatwas against terrorism, violence, militant jihad, suicide bombing, etc. All the specific, detailed condemnations anyone could want to see are listed in this massive compilation, and new condemnations are still being added.

The problem is not that Muslim leadership has failed to condemn these horrific acts, the problem is that the Western media has done a very poor job on reporting these, and that some of the major bloggers, such as Jihad Watch, even though being fully aware of all of those condemnations, still deny that they exist or just blow them off saying "They're all lies" or "They're apostates" or "It's not good enough."
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
BTW, "killing Israeli children" is one of the specific condemnations issued by Muslim leaders at http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
Another BTW, a recent survey in the UK showed that more Muslims condemn any violence used for a political or religious cause than did people of all other religions combined (in the UK).

Also, in 2005, Pew Forum surveyed American Christian leaders (priests, pastors, bishops, deacons, patriarchs, etc.) to find what percentage condemned Christian terrorism such as abortion clinic bombings, assassinations, plots to overthrow the US government, etc, etc. They found that just under 10% condemned Christian terrorism.

In 2006 Pew Forum did a forum to see what percentage of Muslim religious leaders condemned Muslim terrorism, and found that 95% condemned Muslim terrorism.

That should tell you something important. It should also bring to mind an old adage that anti-Muslim Christian bloggers should keep in mind: "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house." (not applying that to anyone here, just to Islamophobes overall)
SocietyVs said…
I think Jim Sutter has supplied some good info there - I think it is worth considering...thanks Jim!
Jim Jordan said…
Hi Rev. Jim
And you were going to propose....something? A solution? A suggestion?

What would you say to a Koranophobe? A Koranophobe is someone who fears Sura 9's repeated calls to "convert or die", or the koranic idea that women are subhuman, or that a perpetual state of war is mandated between Islam and "unbelievers".

Islam is false. The Koran is false. Those are facts not fears. Muslims need to hear the truth, not Political Correctness.

Years ago this type of thinking led to an embrace of the Soviet Union as some sort of eternal necessity. Reagan rejected it as an "aberration". We need to challenge Islam like we challenged them.

Our Word is a sword. We must use it. Blessings.
Abu Daoud said…
Am in the process of reading the Facts not Fear blog and will post some links soon hopefully, though I have some travel coming up.

Thanks to all.
Lady Predator said…
The pseudo “rev” (he has a paid for “ordination” from the universal life church) is neither a neutral, impartial nor accurate source himself, but is in fact a liar, a libeler and a terrorist apologist. His “exposes” are the projections of a very delusional and sick mind. What he has written on Robert Spencer is mostly was work of fiction and so absurd as to be laughable.
One might note that *nothing* the “rev” says about himself is true, his “degrees” and his “military” service are also a work of fiction.
Sutter has been publicly exposed as a SEAL impostor
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-51606.html
And here, go to the bottom of the page
http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1085.htm

There is no King's Word Seminary there is only an unaccredited Kings Word School of the Bible http://www.forministry.com/USOHINDBCDOTWD/KingsWordBibleCollege.dsp that give out certificates of completion run by Pastor Ernie Sanders of the Doers of The Word Baptist Church http://www.xanga.com/Doers. Sutter was once associated with that church and their prison ministry right after he was released from prison for credit card fraud (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prisons/msg/f46a4a14d6f9406d). Here is proof Sutter’s association with Pastor Ernie Sanders http://members.tripod.com/~ohfads/HB555.htm.
At one time he has claimed to be an ordained Catholic minister, "higher than a Deacon, but slightly lower than a priest" -- a position that does not exist. There are three levels of the ordained ministry in the Catholic Church: deacons, priests, and bishops, with nothing in between. http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.ada-law/msg/98eeaf68912e2cf5?hl=en&.
He also claims that he served in the naval reserve as an officer. The Navy doesn’t used convicted “felons” as officers. Go to http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/p_PickSearch.aspx and put Sutter’s name in the criminal search he was convicted January 1982 of 2913.31 UTTERING and was order to pay restitution and put on two years probation. I guess that didn’t make much of an impact on him as ended up in jail a second time for credit card fraud January 1996. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prisons/msg/60cb208d363c9e19. BTW the Navy also doesn’t have people who weigh over 550 pounds.

Sutter is unable to tell the truth about himself or others. He has a difficult time separating his delusions form reality.
SocietyVs said…
I thought about some of the things Sutter said in his comments - and he needs to learn more about conservative Islam and stories about people within the faith that are being tested on 'freedom of speech' - whether in Canada (Irshad Manji) or in Egypt (Nawal Al Saadawi). He makes a lot of claims about the Islam faith which, even if justified, one would have to wonder how certain fatwa's are weighed? No, violence will not be tolerated at all - that's my personal stand on religious faiths - and free speech is the route we need to pursue also (a discussion amongst each of our faiths).
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
First, to Lady Predator, who writes in part "The pseudo “rev” (he has a paid for “ordination” from the universal life church) is neither a neutral, impartial nor accurate source himself, but is in fact a liar, a libeler and a terrorist apologist. His “exposes” are the projections of a very delusional and sick mind. What he has written on Robert Spencer is mostly was work of fiction and so absurd as to be laughable."

Once again, I strongly suggest that you consult an attorney about 42 US Code, section 223 As Amended. Your cyberstalking could be considered a federal felony.

Now, to others: Please remember from the introduction to facts-not-fear, that the site is not in any way meant to be a denial or minimalization of the threat of Muslim extremists, who "justify" their acts of violence with out of context Qur'anic verses and ahadiths, with using 1400 year old obscure legal rulings, with twised perversions of Islam. These practicies are all explained and condemned in detail by the Muslim leaders listed in the blog. Not every single one goes into every single detail; some just use a blanket condemnation, some use partial explanations, some use very detailed full explanations of why this practice of hatred is completely wrong in Islam. I have a different blog, http://terrorisminfo.blogspot.com, that concentrates on terrorist acts, without any Islamophobic exaggeration, myths or hate speech. I separated the two because the facts-not-fear fills the need for a compilation of Muslim condemnations that the Islamophobic sites continually claim are missing -- they either claim that Muslim leaders don't condemn terrorism at all, or that the condemnations are "weak", "taquiyya" or "not good enough."

As to a solution -- the best solution is going to be multi-tiered. Attack the terrorists by using law enforcement, military actions, intelligence ops, block their finances, continue to maintain our strong relations with Muslim allies, recruit additional Muslim allies, and educate the Muslim world through open and honest discussions that we are not their enemy, that we want to help them rid the Muslim world of those who pervert their religion.

But in order to accomplish this, all sides must be honest. Muslim leaders must continue to be willing to admit that there is an extremist element trying to claim the religion of Islam as their own, and the Western world must continue to stress that we have no grudges against the Muslim world, no intentions of working against the Muslim world, that our only concern is eliminating the extremists who resort to terrorism.

We (as a country) have been at war with terrorists of all ideologies, and we will continue to try to stop all terrorists, no matter what faith, politics, or agenda they may follow. Terrorism is terrorism, it doesn't make any difference who commits it in that all terrorism is wrong. Bombs and bullets don't care who their victims are and who their users are, they destroy innocent lives.

I'm told by friends in Europe that the media there regularly covers the condemnations of the Muslim leadership, and that Islamophobia is nowhere near the problem that it is in the USA.

If you (whoever) don't agree with the tenets of Islam (the real tenets, not the propaganda pushed by Islamophobes), then that is your right. It's also your right to express why you don't agree with it. But you (whoever) are abusing that right if you employ deception, lies, out of context verses, or any falsehoods. If we expect Muslims to be honest, then we must also be honest.

Demonizing an entire religion and all its adherants is what causes big trouble. It is generally considered bigotry. It is also the technique used by Hitler against the Jews, by Stalin against all religions, by Chinese leadership against Christianity. It's wrong when they did/do it, and it's just as wrong when Americans do it.

Bottom line - if we expect the Islamist terrorists to stop perverting the religion of Islam to justify their hatred, then we have to stop doing the same thing.
Rev. Jim Sutter said…
Society writes: "SocietyVs said...
I thought about some of the things Sutter said in his comments - and he needs to learn more about conservative Islam and stories about people within the faith that are being tested on 'freedom of speech' - whether in Canada (Irshad Manji) or in Egypt (Nawal Al Saadawi). He makes a lot of claims about the Islam faith which, even if justified, one would have to wonder how certain fatwa's are weighed? No, violence will not be tolerated at all - that's my personal stand on religious faiths - and free speech is the route we need to pursue also (a discussion amongst each of our faiths)."


I am well aware of the many problems with extremists in Islam, even with the conservatives and ultra conservatives. The ultra conservatives even hate bin Laden because they believe he is not "pure" enough, he uses modern weapons, telephones, automobiles, computers - all of which the ultra conservatives do not want to pollute their idea od "purism." There are a lot of problems that must be addressed, but as long as those problems do not promote or create violence, then if they are in different countries, is it our right to order them around? IMO, education would work better in that particular situation. For those who insist on violence against America and her allies, we need to be very aggressive. Where there's no violence (in a big portion of the Muslim world) then we just need to improve relations, draw them in as allies, educate them that we are not their enemies and even offer some help if they need it.

As to the weight of fatwas, first it depends on who is issuing it. Some of the fatwas found on facts-not-fear are issued by recognized leaders of groups of Muslims numbering in the millions. Generally fatwas are most likely to be obeyed by the adherants who are followers of whoever issued it. Even then, in Islam there is an order of authority. The Qur'an is the ultimate authority. The ahadiths are the second most authoritative source. Current fatwas are the next, and some very few Muslims who are under Sharia law then look to the rulings of jurists. But the higher authority always overrules the lower authority where it speaks specifically to the matter. And before someone responds with out of context Qur'anic verses, I would observe that in general, Muslims know to take all of the Qur'an in context, just as Christians in general, should know to take the Bible in full context. That full context includes an understanding of the culture of the time in which they were written, and how culture, society, ethos, and laws have evolved since then.

Free speech should be encouraged wherever possible. One thing that keeps getting in the way is that America has the most liberal laws on free speech, and we Americans keep thinking that every other country has the exact same laws - and they don't. Speech is more limited in other countries, especially in Europe. European countries are much quicker to lock someone up for hate speech than we are. Hate speech shouldn't be used anyway, because by its nature it is dishonest speech. If we are going to engage in a discussion of issues relevant to today's world, then the discussion needs to be open and honest. Disagreement does not have to elevate to hate. Misunderstanding of tenets, principles, cultures or practices does not have to elevate to unreasoned hatred -- it should generate curiosity instead of anger.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as we love Him, and in today's global community that is more important than ever. If Christians want to live by the teachings of Jesus, then we have to actually do it, including the Great Commandment. If we don't do it, then aren't we hypocrites? If so, then how can we accuse those of any other religion of being hypocritical if we ourselves are hypocrites? I'm not saying "hug a terrorist", self-defense has always been approved by God. I'm saying practice what we preach.
Lady Predator said…
The pseudo “Rev”'s page "facts not fear" is full of quotes from CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case. And these condemnations are of Muslim-on-Muslim violence or vague condemnations of "terrorism" or attacks on "innocents" or "civilians" without defining those terms.

We all know that to a Muslim a non-Muslim is not an innocent.
His "pro-Islam" page is full of it is full of half-truths from deceivers.

As for cyberstalking you clearly don't understand the law. I've made no threats, (unlike you who has threaten to reveal my home address and has posted lies about me) I've merely expose what a liar, bully and poseur you are by using your own words. Usenet kooks like you just hate it when their lies are exposed to the light.

It seems the blogosphere has finally wised up to what a fraud you are.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017000.php
http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/search?q=Sutter
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188605.php
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/07/05/censorship-of-jihadwatch/#comments
http://foehammer.net/2007/07/kooky-jim-sutter-good-news-on-spreading-ban-of-hate-speech-site.html
Rev Jim said…
Gosh, LadyPredator, all from well recognized hate sites. What a wonderful following you have.

As usual, you fail to address any issues and only engage in ad hominems. The subject here is Muslims condemning Muslim violence. I have clearly shown that a great number of Muslims have indeed done so. A claim that the condemnation are "deceitful" is without basis in fact or reality (elements commonly missing from Islamophobic writers.) Also, it is an incorrect assumption to state "We all know..." unless you have personally surveyed every single person in whatever group this "all" is supposed to signify.

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan population may touch 292m mark by 2050

Missionary Secrets 4: our churches don't know what to do with us...