My response to Separating Church and Hate Irrationality and Anti Muslim Stereotyping written by Cynthia Boaz

Ms. Boaz wrote a two part article quite a while ago decrying the skepticism of Anti islam forces and attempted to explain away Islams flaws as ‘misconceptions’.

Allow me to address her article with the following points.

1 Islam is not merely a religion but a Theocratic system that has taken over a good chunk of the planet.

2 Islam as a system took out ALL other religions forcing those populations to become muslim or be killed off,. enslaved.

3 Since Islam is a religious-cultural-political system we as Westerners have every right to learn about it and then chose to be skeptical of it.

Here is her article in its entirety.

“Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.

-M. K. Gandhi”

“Within minutes of learning that last November’s Fort Hood shooter had an Arab name and an Islamic background, commentators at the major media outlets were engaging in wild speculation that the killer’s motive was “jihad” and that the murders fell into the category of political terrorism. For many Americans, these reflexive conclusions also confirmed what they’d decided long ago: that Muslims want to do them harm. Although it is more appropriate to try and understand perpetrators of terrorism by their political (rather than religious) identifications and grievances, the tenacity with which interchangeability of the concepts of Islam and terrorism holds on — and is perpetuated in mainstream discourse — is doing damage to the idea that the United States and its people represent the most open, tolerant society the world has to offer.”

“A while back, I attended a conference at Boulder’s Naropa University on “Human and Women’s Rights in Islam,” at which we discussed the most persistent stereotypes about Islam and Muslims held by Westerners generally — and Americans particularly — that demand closer examination. Individually, these misconceptions are the source of grave misunderstandings between individuals. Collectively, they form the basis of a worldview so distorted that it drives some of its proponents to openly and brazenly call for the use of violence against their fellow citizens, including, in the most stunning cases, the president himself (who, although not Muslim, is regularly and pejoratively cast as such by his detractors.)”

“Let’s just be frank. The demonization of Islam as a religion and of its adherents as individuals has reached the level of hysteria within the United States. Although the fear of Muslims is usually cloaked in condescension or indignation, the source of this most recent version of bigotry is transparent and utterly predictable. There must be a nameless, faceless, sinister “other” upon whom we can hang our deepest anxieties and frustrations as a people. This kind of paranoia is not unique, but as its perpetrators on right-wing radio, FOX “News” and the far-right blogosphere can attest, it still works like a charm.”

“I would offer to Americans that if you’ve come to believe that it’s Islam that’s the source of our problems, you might as well pack it up and go home because the terrorists have already won.”

“Both religious and political extremists operate from the same modus operandi: they find those issues around which people hold deep core beliefs — beliefs that, generally speaking, cannot be articulated nor defended through logic — and they exploit them. It’s a terribly simplistic strategy — tell people that “those people” are out to get them, that their own cause is righteous, and that without a militant — even violent — defense of one’s core beliefs, their livelihood and lives are threatened. Then the manipulators — ambitious political tacticians and unprincipled sycophants — stoke the flames of hysteria until they’ve engulfed rational thought entirely.”

 

“Choked off by reflexive fear and rage, truth struggles to breathe. The following is my contribution to the intellectual atmosphere. I’ll examine the three most pervasive (although by no means only) misconceptions that Americans hold about Islam and Muslims. These are the deeply-held stereotypes that must be salved by conscious, rational thought, lest the hysteria about religious difference lead us directly down the path most desired by the violent extremists (both “Muslim” and “Christian”) who are the primary sources of this disinformation.”

“Misconception 1: Islam is a religion of violence.”

“The term Islam means “submission,” and the words “Islam” and “Muslim” share a root (found in Hebrew as well as Arabic) that means “peace.” On their own, these facts don’t do much to assuage the misconception under examination, but taken in their larger context, they are highly relevant to understanding the nature of the religion, which is that it’s major tenets (the “five pillars” of Islam) revolve around the call of the faithful to piety, discipline and compassion — the very same virtues called for by people of Christian faith.”

 

“An integrated perspective would accept that in order to make the claim that Islam is violent, one must admit that Christianity and Judaism, the other two monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, are also violent. Unbeknownst to most Christians, Muslims generally view Islam as in the same tradition of Christianity (and Judaism) and often refer to followers of those faiths as fellow “people of the book.” All three religions claim a lineage back to Abraham and thus, the followers of these three Abrahamic religions see themselves as a kind of extended (if estranged) family.”

“There is nothing about Islam in particular — even in the text (especially when compared to the Old Testament Bible) — that makes it more violent than other religious faiths. With a simple search, one can find isolated verses from the Qu’ran (or Bible) to illustrate the violence inherent in the stories. But should either of these religions be understood solely on the basis of its most violent imagery, or should they be considered in their larger contexts, in the spirit of the respective majorities of the faithful? Few Christians would submit that the faith could be adequately understood by a simple reading of the violence in Leviticus and Psalms, for example. Yet when asked what they know about the Qu’ran, many Americans cite the meme repeated daily on cable news for years after 9/11 that the book calls for the murder of “infidels” through the requirement of “jihad.”

“But the term “jihad” needs rehabilitation. Literally translated, it means “struggle” and moderate (non-extremist) Muslims widely understand that the “greater jihad” (the more accurate meaning of the term) is that of the internal struggle — the struggle of the individual Muslim to submit to the faith and resist calls to greed, temptation and violence.”

“Every religion appears violent when extremists commit murder in its name. President George W. Bush once informed a group of Palestinian ministers that “God told [him]” to invade Iraq. For an innocent Iraqi civilian on the receiving end of that message, how is the phrase “God is on our side” — parroted on billboards, bumper stickers and by White House staffers — qualitatively different from the words “Allahu Akhbar” when yelled from a lips of a Muslim about to commit murder? It’s an indication that the person endorsing or engaging in the violence believes it to have been sanctioned by God. And there is nothing more divisive than telling someone else your violence against them and their people is righteous.”

“Additionally, it is logically invalid to make inferences about a group based on the actions on a few individuals, and in particular when evidence is excluded to bias the result (in statistics, this is called the fallacy of exclusion). The success of demonization and otherization of Muslims by American mainstream media and key political officials and observers depends on the audience’s willingness to engage in hasty generalizations, which — when driven by fear — they are more prone to do. Interestingly, when analyzing the political significance of Islam, pundits and critics tend to focus on behavior of individuals who call themselves Muslim. Most do not bother to study the texts. Those same critics, however, tend to look past the (sometimes horrifying) behavior of people who call themselves Christians, and instead focus on the teaching of Jesus as the benchmark of piety for Christianity. In other words, when extremist Christians engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the individuals. But when extremist Muslims engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the entire religion. There is no way to explain this bizarre double standard other than for political convenience.”

“Furthermore, to characterize violence as “terrorism” because the person committing it is Muslim has implications for millions, maybe billions, of people within and beyond the United States. But the concepts of “Islam” and “terrorism” have become so closely linked in the mass consciousness that although the crimes of terrorism and murder are equally abhorrent, there is a dangerous perception (trumpeted by right-wing sycophants like Rush Limbaugh) that using the term “terrorism” stamps the crime with a special level of moral heinousness and therefore justifies a degree of righteous indignation — and a corollary violent response — beyond the norm. Not surprisingly, although Islam has no monopoly on terror, Christianity has never suffered a PR crisis in the West as a result of its extremists (such as Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City) who’ve committed violence in the name of the religion.”

“Misconception 2: Islam calls for the oppression of women.”

“As with the first misconception, this one is based partially on an incomplete understanding of the Qu’ran, and is reinforced by the policies and practices of some Islamic theocracies, such as the government in Iran. However, within Iran (as elsewhere) there is no universal acceptance of discriminatory laws as acceptable or consistent with Islam. In fact, Iranian women, led by Nobel Laureate and human rights attorney Shirin Ebadi, have repeatedly used the Qu’ran and other Islamic texts to fight for the rights of women unjustly arrested by the Iranian regime. In an interview last October, Ebadi told me:”

“The most important event that has occurred in Iran is that women have been able to interpret Islam correctly in order to obtain their rights. When the One Million Signatures campaign (in promotion of equal rights for women) started, the [organizers] brought me a draft to review. I reviewed it to make sure it was legal and credible and that the women’s demands were reiterated in the document. And I also provided necessary documentation to show that the demands were supported by Islamic faith and jurisprudence, because I was sure that at some point, we would be forced to appear before the courts. And that’s exactly what happened. A number of our volunteers collecting signatures were arrested. The government tried to charge women with acting against Islam. I agreed to defend their cases. I copied all the [religious] documentation I had put aside and gave it to my colleagues and when we appeared before prosecutor we put it on his desk and said “Tell us, are we right or are you?” And we asked him to consider that what he is saying is not the only interpretation [of the Qu’ran]. They dropped the charge that the women were working against Islam [and] they brought up a new charge that the women were acting against national security. And in the defense I asked the prosecutor “If a woman simply doesn’t want her husband to bring in a second or third wife, how exactly does that threaten national security and convince the United States to attack Iran?”

“Ebadi’s example is illustrative of the real challenge to equality for women in Iran, which is not the Qu’ran or Islam, but the selective and self-interested interpretation and manipulation of the faith by a minority of male clerics, judges and policymakers.”

 

“Around the world, Muslim women are organizing forcefully on behalf of their rights, and argue that it is they who are interpreting Islam correctly. All of the world’s religions share a claim to advocate on behalf of the qualities of love, compassion, forgiveness, nonviolence and equality. Although some members of the faiths don’t adhere to those principles, it does not mean the texts or faiths themselves justify oppression.”

 

“And even if the above were not the case, I have yet to hear of a Muslim woman in a repressive country who appreciates being used as the justification for a military attack on her home, family and society.”

“Misconception 3: Moderate Muslims enable radicals by tolerating their behavior.”

“Although the story was never covered in mainstream American media, after 9/11, there was a major fatwa (religious decree) issued by five of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders and scholars which gave permission to American Muslims to fight in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States and against their Muslim Afghani counterparts. The justification given was religious — the fatwa said that, as Muslims, they could respond to an act of terror against their country, the United States. Why, in the anti-Muslim fervor following the attacks of September 2001, was this story of a remarkable act of solidarity by Muslim leaders not made available to the American media public? Perhaps because it complicates the black-and-whiteness of the policy perspectives towards the Muslims and Islamic countries of the world.”

“Islam is actually a very democratically-structured faith, and that creates one serious liability, which is that it is difficult for those outside of the faith to ascertain the perspectives of the masses. No one person speaks for Islam, and therefore apostates can claim to be spokespeople for the faith without outsiders questioning that authority. But in truth, there are many Islamic and interfaith groups around the world working to reclaim the image of Islam and to heal the wounds created by the last decade of especially hostile confrontation between extremist Muslims and anti-Muslim reactionaries. Some of these associations include the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality and the Interfaith Alliance.”

“The United States is less threatened by Islam than by religious extremism in all its forms. Extremist Muslims and extremist Christians have more in common than moderates of either faith have with their extremists. There is a conventional wisdom that separation of church and state was included amongst the first amendment rights was not because the United States’ founders wanted to protect religion from the state, but because they wanted to protect the state from religion. Indeed, they understood the power of religious dogma to permeate and distort democratic politics and to drive otherwise rational human beings to endorse horrifyingly inhumane policies. When we find ourselves justifying public policy with religious language or imagery, we have already violated this central tenet. If both American democracy and civilization are to survive, we must find a way to help enlightened reason transcend our religious dogmatism.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-boaz/separating-church-and-hat_b_637128.html

http://www.truth-out.org/separating-church-and-hate-a-plea-sanity60819

Allow me to address her issues by breaking apart her article to small portions.

1 “Let’s just be frank. The demonization of Islam as a religion and of its adherents as individuals has reached the level of hysteria within the United States. Although the fear of Muslims is usually cloaked in condescension or indignation, the source of this most recent version of bigotry is transparent and utterly predictable. There must be a nameless, faceless, sinister “other” upon whom we can hang our deepest anxieties and frustrations as a people. This kind of paranoia is not unique, but as its perpetrators on right-wing radio, FOX “News” and the far-right blogosphere can attest, it still works like a charm.”

 

“I would offer to Americans that if you’ve come to believe that it’s Islam that’s the source of our problems, you might as well pack it up and go home because the terrorists have already won.”

If Ms. Boaz thinks of islam simply as a religion that is her first mistake. If she were to actually read from islamic websites about what Islam is and their hatred of Western political activities she would understand that the Islamic system means to remove Western Democracy.

The Islamic system is not the ‘source’ of Western problems. The sources of Western problems are various Islam is only one of our many problems.

2 “Both religious and political extremists operate from the same modus operandi: they find those issues around which people hold deep core beliefs — beliefs that, generally speaking, cannot be articulated nor defended through logic — and they exploit them. It’s a terribly simplistic strategy — tell people that “those people” are out to get them, that their own cause is righteous, and that without a militant — even violent — defense of one’s core beliefs, their livelihood and lives are threatened. Then the manipulators — ambitious political tacticians and unprincipled sycophants — stoke the flames of hysteria until they’ve engulfed rational thought entirely.”

 

“Choked off by reflexive fear and rage, truth struggles to breathe. The following is my contribution to the intellectual atmosphere. I’ll examine the three most pervasive (although by no means only) misconceptions that Americans hold about Islam and Muslims. These are the deeply-held stereotypes that must be salved by conscious, rational thought, lest the hysteria about religious difference lead us directly down the path most desired by the violent extremists (both “Muslim” and “Christian”) who are the primary sources of this disinformation.”

I can agree that political and religious ‘extremists’ can operate well written propaganda to influence a population. But in general terms religion and politics aren’t the same. Using myself as a example my skepticism of islam is based off of their own teachings, writings, youtube videos and other resources I have found online or at the library. In using their own resources I discovered that the Islamic system is not for me or those around me. For her purposes she assumes that all skeptics of islam only use their fellows writings, teachings and so forth.

Political and religious ideology can be defend by logic the main problem is whether that skeptic will accept another’s ideas or not.

Is Christian, Jewish, Atheist ‘propaganda’ really the cause of ‘misunderstandings’? Not really we have paid attention to how Islamic Governments using Sharia laws have affected and destroyed non muslim communities. That’s not propaganda that’s reality.

“Misconception 1: Islam is a religion of violence.”

“The term Islam means “submission,” and the words “Islam” and “Muslim” share a root (found in Hebrew as well as Arabic) that means “peace.” On their own, these facts don’t do much to assuage the misconception under examination, but taken in their larger context, they are highly relevant to understanding the nature of the religion, which is that it’s major tenets (the “five pillars” of Islam) revolve around the call of the faithful to piety, discipline and compassion — the very same virtues called for by people of Christian faith.”

 

“An integrated perspective would accept that in order to make the claim that Islam is violent, one must admit that Christianity and Judaism, the other two monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, are also violent. Unbeknownst to most Christians, Muslims generally view Islam as in the same tradition of Christianity (and Judaism) and often refer to followers of those faiths as fellow “people of the book.” All three religions claim a lineage back to Abraham and thus, the followers of these three Abrahamic religions see themselves as a kind of extended (if estranged) family.”

“There is nothing about Islam in particular — even in the text (especially when compared to the Old Testament Bible) — that makes it more violent than other religious faiths. With a simple search, one can find isolated verses from the Qu’ran (or Bible) to illustrate the violence inherent in the stories. But should either of these religions be understood solely on the basis of its most violent imagery, or should they be considered in their larger contexts, in the spirit of the respective majorities of the faithful? Few Christians would submit that the faith could be adequately understood by a simple reading of the violence in Leviticus and Psalms, for example. Yet when asked what they know about the Qu’ran, many Americans cite the meme repeated daily on cable news for years after 9/11 that the book calls for the murder of “infidels” through the requirement of “jihad.”

“But the term “jihad” needs rehabilitation. Literally translated, it means “struggle” and moderate (non-extremist) Muslims widely understand that the “greater jihad” (the more accurate meaning of the term) is that of the internal struggle — the struggle of the individual Muslim to submit to the faith and resist calls to greed, temptation and violence.”

 

“Every religion appears violent when extremists commit murder in its name. President George W. Bush once informed a group of Palestinian ministers that “God told [him]” to invade Iraq. For an innocent Iraqi civilian on the receiving end of that message, how is the phrase “God is on our side” — parroted on billboards, bumper stickers and by White House staffers — qualitatively different from the words “Allahu Akhbar” when yelled from a lips of a Muslim about to commit murder? It’s an indication that the person endorsing or engaging in the violence believes it to have been sanctioned by God. And there is nothing more divisive than telling someone else your violence against them and their people is righteous.”

“Additionally, it is logically invalid to make inferences about a group based on the actions on a few individuals, and in particular when evidence is excluded to bias the result (in statistics, this is called the fallacy of exclusion). The success of demonization and otherization of Muslims by American mainstream media and key political officials and observers depends on the audience’s willingness to engage in hasty generalizations, which — when driven by fear — they are more prone to do. Interestingly, when analyzing the political significance of Islam, pundits and critics tend to focus on behavior of individuals who call themselves Muslim. Most do not bother to study the texts. Those same critics, however, tend to look past the (sometimes horrifying) behavior of people who call themselves Christians, and instead focus on the teaching of Jesus as the benchmark of piety for Christianity. In other words, when extremist Christians engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the individuals. But when extremist Muslims engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the entire religion. There is no way to explain this bizarre double standard other than for political convenience.”

“Furthermore, to characterize violence as “terrorism” because the person committing it is Muslim has implications for millions, maybe billions, of people within and beyond the United States. But the concepts of “Islam” and “terrorism” have become so closely linked in the mass consciousness that although the crimes of terrorism and murder are equally abhorrent, there is a dangerous perception (trumpeted by right-wing sycophants like Rush Limbaugh) that using the term “terrorism” stamps the crime with a special level of moral heinousness and therefore justifies a degree of righteous indignation — and a corollary violent response — beyond the norm. Not surprisingly, although Islam has no monopoly on terror, Christianity has never suffered a PR crisis in the West as a result of its extremists (such as Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City) who’ve committed violence in the name of the religion.”

(“The term Islam means “submission,” and the words “Islam” and “Muslim” share a root (found in Hebrew as well as Arabic) that means “peace.” On their own, these facts don’t do much to assuage the misconception under examination, but taken in their larger context, they are highly relevant to understanding the nature of the religion, which is that it’s major tenets (the “five pillars” of Islam) revolve around the call of the faithful to piety, discipline and compassion — the very same virtues called for by people of Christian faith.”)

Ok that is a poor explanation of how ‘Islam’ is defined. Let’s see what Islam really means.

“Does Islam mean Peace?”

“We have to explore this mantra on three levels: Linguistic, Historical & Actual Linguistically:  ISLAM does NOT mean PEACE and never meant peace; this disingenuous explanation is spread by people who are either utterly ignorant of the Arabic language or to purposefully deceive the unwary listener or reader.”

“In Arabic, ISLAM has its root in the Quadratic verb ASLAMA which actually means only one thing: SUBMISSION that is submission to the will of one god.”

http://inthenameofallah.org/Does%20Islam%20mean%20PEACE.html

“Islam/Muslim:”

“       It is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama to Surrender/Submit (to the will of the One and Only God).”

“        It is the religion of submission and a follower of Islam is called a Muslim. Another form of Islam is Hanif.”

http://inthenameofallah.org/Islam%20OR%20Muslim.html

(B) “An integrated perspective would accept that in order to make the claim that Islam is violent, one must admit that Christianity and Judaism, the other two monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, are also violent. Unbeknownst to most Christians, Muslims generally view Islam as in the same tradition of Christianity (and Judaism) and often refer to followers of those faiths as fellow “people of the book.” All three religions claim a lineage back to Abraham and thus, the followers of these three Abrahamic religions see themselves as a kind of extended (if estranged) family.”

“There is nothing about Islam in particular — even in the text (especially when compared to the Old Testament Bible) — that makes it more violent than other religious faiths. With a simple search, one can find isolated verses from the Qu’ran (or Bible) to illustrate the violence inherent in the stories. But should either of these religions be understood solely on the basis of its most violent imagery, or should they be considered in their larger contexts, in the spirit of the respective majorities of the faithful? Few Christians would submit that the faith could be adequately understood by a simple reading of the violence in Leviticus and Psalms, for example. Yet when asked what they know about the Qu’ran, many Americans cite the meme repeated daily on cable news for years after 9/11 that the book calls for the murder of “infidels” through the requirement of “jihad.”

“But the term “jihad” needs rehabilitation. Literally translated, it means “struggle” and moderate (non-extremist) Muslims widely understand that the “greater jihad” (the more accurate meaning of the term) is that of the internal struggle — the struggle of the individual Muslim to submit to the faith and resist calls to greed, temptation and violence.”

No Practitioner of the Jewish or Christian has a ideology in their Faith that allows them to attack, murder, rape or rob non believers. Islam does. Can a Christian, Jew, Atheist or pick your religion attack, murder, rob, rape? The answer is unfortunately yes. But my point is that Judaism and Christianity donot have a known Theocratic commandment that allows any of us to do those criminal acts against believers or unbelievers. That is the major difference here.

Let’s look at the term ‘People of the book’:

“People of the Book/ Ahl al Kitab:”

“       In Muhammadan tradition, the Jews and Christians are called

“People of the Book” [Ahl al Kitab] to distinguish them from all otherwise pagan religious groups. The ‘Book’ is invariably the Hebrew Bible. “

“       In the Quran this reference is invariably attributed to the Jews and the Torah. This expression appears in seventeen different Surahs about fifty five times. “

“       In most of the verses they speak of ‘some’ but NOT ‘all’ “The People of the Book” as guilty of one thing or another. Surahs 3,4, and 5 mention them most. Examples:  3:110/115; 4:156; 5:55/56; etc.”

“       At the very beginning of his evangelism, when Muhammad was a solitary and weak warner in Mecca among his antagonistic Quraysh tribe, his attitude towards the People of the Book was generally benign and conciliatory. It was during his Madina period ( for almost 10 years) that he reversed gear and turned against them for refusing to accept him as a messenger of Allah.     “

http://inthenameofallah.org/People%20of%20the%20Book%20OR%20Ahl%20al%20Kitab.html

Another poor example by the articles author.

(“There is nothing about Islam in particular — even in the text (especially when compared to the Old Testament Bible) — that makes it more violent than other religious faiths. With a simple search, one can find isolated verses from the Qu’ran (or Bible) to illustrate the violence inherent in the stories. But should either of these religions be understood solely on the basis of its most violent imagery, or should they be considered in their larger contexts, in the spirit of the respective majorities of the faithful? Few Christians would submit that the faith could be adequately understood by a simple reading of the violence in Leviticus and Psalms, for example. Yet when asked what they know about the Qu’ran, many Americans cite the meme repeated daily on cable news for years after 9/11 that the book calls for the murder of “infidels” through the requirement of “jihad.”)

It is well known that Leviticus and the Psalms are solely part of the Torah. Those are poor examples of so called ‘violent’ passages in the Christian Bible. Of course Christians have no specific ideology in their faith that allows them to commit criminality.

Meanwhile when we look up the Islamic term of jihad we find the following.

“Jihad:-“

“       In Arabic it means Struggle/Endeavour/ Fighting in the cause of Allah/ Warfare  “

“       Contrary to all the falsified assertions by politically correct westerners and aided and abetted by Muhammadans who have every reason to hide the truth, Jihad is not a SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE for excellence but a  CONTINUOUS WAR against all so called UNBELIEVERS until all of humanity is either converted to Muhammadan Islam or is subject to it. “

“       The Quran and the Hadiths are crystal clear in affirming this. The Quran and Ahadith contain hundreds of verses attesting to and asserting this dogma.”

“       Not ONCE in the Quran is the word JIHAD mentioned by itself and meaning SPIRITUAL STRUGGLE. All the derivatives of the word JIHAD in the Quran and Hadiths represent ACTS of WAR and AGGRESSION.”

“       To be prepared to willingly die for the faith, thus becoming a martyr [shaheed], with almost infinite sensual and carnal rewards in the after life than in life on earth, should be considered among the most DIABOLICAL weapons of war ever conceived. This ‘weapon’ has been used throughout ‘Islamic’ history both against the ‘infidels’ as well as against other ‘unbelieving’ sects of Islam.”

http://inthenameofallah.org/J%20i%20h%20a%20d.html

I will suppose she has never read the quran. I have and I am skeptical of ANYONE who claims that it has no violent passages in it.

Examples of jihad and violence in the quran:

Slaughter/Fight/ Kill/ Murder in the Quran:-    

http://inthenameofallah.org/Slauhgter%20Fight%20Kill%20in%20the%20Quran.html

Quran & Terror:-

http://inthenameofallah.org/Quran%20&%20Terror.html

Quran Against Christians:-

http://inthenameofallah.org/Quran%20Against%20Christians.html

Quran Against Jews:-

http://inthenameofallah.org/Quran%20Against%20Jews.html

MUHAMMAD’s QURAN PROTOCOLS FOR TOTAL WAR

http://inthenameofallah.org/Total%20War.html

(She continues her rant with: “Every religion appears violent when extremists commit murder in its name. President George W. Bush once informed a group of Palestinian ministers that “God told [him]” to invade Iraq. For an innocent Iraqi civilian on the receiving end of that message, how is the phrase “God is on our side” — parroted on billboards, bumper stickers and by White House staffers — qualitatively different from the words “Allahu Akhbar” when yelled from a lips of a Muslim about to commit murder? It’s an indication that the person endorsing or engaging in the violence believes it to have been sanctioned by God. And there is nothing more divisive than telling someone else your violence against them and their people is righteous.”

“Additionally, it is logically invalid to make inferences about a group based on the actions on a few individuals, and in particular when evidence is excluded to bias the result (in statistics, this is called the fallacy of exclusion). The success of demonization and otherization of Muslims by American mainstream media and key political officials and observers depends on the audience’s willingness to engage in hasty generalizations, which — when driven by fear — they are more prone to do. Interestingly, when analyzing the political significance of Islam, pundits and critics tend to focus on behavior of individuals who call themselves Muslim. Most do not bother to study the texts. Those same critics, however, tend to look past the (sometimes horrifying) behavior of people who call themselves Christians, and instead focus on the teaching of Jesus as the benchmark of piety for Christianity. In other words, when extremist Christians engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the individuals. But when extremist Muslims engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the entire religion. There is no way to explain this bizarre double standard other than for political convenience.”

“Furthermore, to characterize violence as “terrorism” because the person committing it is Muslim has implications for millions, maybe billions, of people within and beyond the United States. But the concepts of “Islam” and “terrorism” have become so closely linked in the mass consciousness that although the crimes of terrorism and murder are equally abhorrent, there is a dangerous perception (trumpeted by right-wing sycophants like Rush Limbaugh) that using the term “terrorism” stamps the crime with a special level of moral heinousness and therefore justifies a degree of righteous indignation — and a corollary violent response — beyond the norm. Not surprisingly, although Islam has no monopoly on terror, Christianity has never suffered a PR crisis in the West as a result of its extremists (such as Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City) who’ve committed violence in the name of the religion.”

(“Every religion appears violent when extremists commit murder in its name. President George W. Bush once informed a group of Palestinian ministers that “God told [him]” to invade Iraq. For an innocent Iraqi civilian on the receiving end of that message, how is the phrase “God is on our side” — parroted on billboards, bumper stickers and by White House staffers — qualitatively different from the words “Allahu Akhbar” when yelled from a lips of a Muslim about to commit murder? It’s an indication that the person endorsing or engaging in the violence believes it to have been sanctioned by God. And there is nothing more divisive than telling someone else your violence against them and their people is righteous.”)

Did former Pres Bush say that? She should be willing to give a link to prove that. Like most politicans they are willing to use ANY Group, Religion or community to get into the White house. Even Obama used various groups to get into the White house.

(“Additionally, it is logically invalid to make inferences about a group based on the actions on a few individuals, and in particular when evidence is excluded to bias the result (in statistics, this is called the fallacy of exclusion). The success of demonization and otherization of Muslims by American mainstream media and key political officials and observers depends on the audience’s willingness to engage in hasty generalizations, which — when driven by fear — they are more prone to do. Interestingly, when analyzing the political significance of Islam, pundits and critics tend to focus on behavior of individuals who call themselves Muslim. Most do not bother to study the texts. Those same critics, however, tend to look past the (sometimes horrifying) behavior of people who call themselves Christians, and instead focus on the teaching of Jesus as the benchmark of piety for Christianity. In other words, when extremist Christians engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the individuals. But when extremist Muslims engage in heinous acts, the default is to condemn the entire religion. There is no way to explain this bizarre double standard other than for political convenience.”)

In reality Islam as a system has had 1400 years of ‘terrorism’ changing the Old world into what it is today. If Ms. Boaz took the time to see how the Islamic system treated non muslims in history she would withdraw her article.

See here: http://historyofjihad.com/

Another subject is so called ‘Christian terrorism’ which would typically include Anti abortion attacks, Various Catholic wars, tortures and stupidity. Despite a bloody history of so called ‘Christian terrorism’ the truth is that Jesus did not Command his Jewish or Gentile followers to commit criminality against non believers. Ms. Boaz obviously has not researched the differences between Christians and those who claim to be Christian.

(“Furthermore, to characterize violence as “terrorism” because the person committing it is Muslim has implications for millions, maybe billions, of people within and beyond the United States. But the concepts of “Islam” and “terrorism” have become so closely linked in the mass consciousness that although the crimes of terrorism and murder are equally abhorrent, there is a dangerous perception (trumpeted by right-wing sycophants like Rush Limbaugh) that using the term “terrorism” stamps the crime with a special level of moral heinousness and therefore justifies a degree of righteous indignation — and a corollary violent response — beyond the norm. Not surprisingly, although Islam has no monopoly on terror, Christianity has never suffered a PR crisis in the West as a result of its extremists (such as Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City) who’ve committed violence in the name of the religion.”)

Violence and Terrorism are obviously not the same. Terrorism is the use of violence for political means. As I have already shown Jihad is part of the political arm of Islam as a system to force non believers into Islam.

More importantly was McVeigh a Christian? Nope he was a racist who claimed to a farce of a religion called “Christian Identity”.

See here:

The Tim McVeigh and the Christian Identity Connection

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/cal_shoot.htm

Christian Identity: A Religion for White Racists

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/identity.htm

Timothy McVeigh: A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST?

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/mcveigh.htm

An Accurate Look at Timothy McVeigh’s Beliefs

By: Bruce Prescott

Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:08 pm

Section: Columns on Church and Theology

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532

Well Ms. Boaz it seems you are wrong yet again.

Let’s continue to analyze and comment on her article:

“Misconception 2: Islam calls for the oppression of women.”

“As with the first misconception, this one is based partially on an incomplete understanding of the Qu’ran, and is reinforced by the policies and practices of some Islamic theocracies, such as the government in Iran. However, within Iran (as elsewhere) there is no universal acceptance of discriminatory laws as acceptable or consistent with Islam. In fact, Iranian women, led by Nobel Laureate and human rights attorney Shirin Ebadi, have repeatedly used the Qu’ran and other Islamic texts to fight for the rights of women unjustly arrested by the Iranian regime. In an interview last October, Ebadi told me:”

 

“The most important event that has occurred in Iran is that women have been able to interpret Islam correctly in order to obtain their rights. When the One Million Signatures campaign (in promotion of equal rights for women) started, the [organizers] brought me a draft to review. I reviewed it to make sure it was legal and credible and that the women’s demands were reiterated in the document. And I also provided necessary documentation to show that the demands were supported by Islamic faith and jurisprudence, because I was sure that at some point, we would be forced to appear before the courts. And that’s exactly what happened. A number of our volunteers collecting signatures were arrested. The government tried to charge women with acting against Islam. I agreed to defend their cases. I copied all the [religious] documentation I had put aside and gave it to my colleagues and when we appeared before prosecutor we put it on his desk and said “Tell us, are we right or are you?” And we asked him to consider that what he is saying is not the only interpretation [of the Qu’ran]. They dropped the charge that the women were working against Islam [and] they brought up a new charge that the women were acting against national security. And in the defense I asked the prosecutor “If a woman simply doesn’t want her husband to bring in a second or third wife, how exactly does that threaten national security and convince the United States to attack Iran?”

 

“Ebadi’s example is illustrative of the real challenge to equality for women in Iran, which is not the Qu’ran or Islam, but the selective and self-interested interpretation and manipulation of the faith by a minority of male clerics, judges and policymakers.”

 

“Around the world, Muslim women are organizing forcefully on behalf of their rights, and argue that it is they who are interpreting Islam correctly. All of the world’s religions share a claim to advocate on behalf of the qualities of love, compassion, forgiveness, nonviolence and equality. Although some members of the faiths don’t adhere to those principles, it does not mean the texts or faiths themselves justify oppression.”

 

“And even if the above were not the case, I have yet to hear of a Muslim woman in a repressive country who appreciates being used as the justification for a military attack on her home, family and society.”

Yes indeed the Muslima are trying to organize for their rights. But the Islamic system gives them nothing. Womens rights as we know in the West are vastly different than the ‘protection’ offered by the islamic system. In my studies most Islamic countries treat their own women pretty badly.

Women In Islam:-

http://inthenameofallah.org/Women%20in%20Islam.html

Women

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/women/

“Misconception 3: Moderate Muslims enable radicals by tolerating their behavior.”

 

“Although the story was never covered in mainstream American media, after 9/11, there was a major fatwa (religious decree) issued by five of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders and scholars which gave permission to American Muslims to fight in Afghanistan on behalf of the United States and against their Muslim Afghani counterparts. The justification given was religious — the fatwa said that, as Muslims, they could respond to an act of terror against their country, the United States. Why, in the anti-Muslim fervor following the attacks of September 2001, was this story of a remarkable act of solidarity by Muslim leaders not made available to the American media public? Perhaps because it complicates the black-and-whiteness of the policy perspectives towards the Muslims and Islamic countries of the world.”

 

“Islam is actually a very democratically-structured faith, and that creates one serious liability, which is that it is difficult for those outside of the faith to ascertain the perspectives of the masses. No one person speaks for Islam, and therefore apostates can claim to be spokespeople for the faith without outsiders questioning that authority. But in truth, there are many Islamic and interfaith groups around the world working to reclaim the image of Islam and to heal the wounds created by the last decade of especially hostile confrontation between extremist Muslims and anti-Muslim reactionaries. Some of these associations include the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality and the Interfaith Alliance.”

 

 

“The United States is less threatened by Islam than by religious extremism in all its forms. Extremist Muslims and extremist Christians have more in common than moderates of either faith have with their extremists. There is a conventional wisdom that separation of church and state was included amongst the first amendment rights was not because the United States’ founders wanted to protect religion from the state, but because they wanted to protect the state from religion. Indeed, they understood the power of religious dogma to permeate and distort democratic politics and to drive otherwise rational human beings to endorse horrifyingly inhumane policies. When we find ourselves justifying public policy with religious language or imagery, we have already violated this central tenet. If both American democracy and civilization are to survive, we must find a way to help enlightened reason transcend our religious dogmatism.”

 

Ah the mythical ‘moderate moslem’ Let’s see what she thinks of these examples:

The Mythical Moderate Muslim

http://www.faithfreedom.org/one/the-mythical-moderate-muslim/

Moderate Islam Is No Islam

Saturday, May 1st, 2010 | Posted by Amil Imani

published first in July 20, 2007

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/moderate-islam-is-no-islam/

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=2

Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam

Saturday, March 13th, 2010 | Posted by Ali Sina

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/exposing-the-myth-of-moderate-islam/

Using the examples I have posted here Islam is not a liberalized religion but a entire system that was created to enforce a Theocratic system upon all conquered peoples. This includes Ms. Boaz.

Lastly: “The United States is less threatened by Islam than by religious extremism in all its forms. Extremist Muslims and extremist Christians have more in common than moderates of either faith have with their extremists. There is a conventional wisdom that separation of church and state was included amongst the first amendment rights was not because the United States’ founders wanted to protect religion from the state, but because they wanted to protect the state from religion. Indeed, they understood the power of religious dogma to permeate and distort democratic politics and to drive otherwise rational human beings to endorse horrifyingly inhumane policies. When we find ourselves justifying public policy with religious language or imagery, we have already violated this central tenet. If both American democracy and civilization are to survive, we must find a way to help enlightened reason transcend our religious dogmatism.”

As I have already mentioned a number of times is this response. Ms. Boaz doesn’t know everything about islam as I do. She obviously never opened the quran, read it and tested its content against her own beliefs. She has also not bothered to read up on islam from its online resources.

Ms. Boaz wrote this article not from the standpoint to supposedly change or challenge Christian skepticism of islam or any other religion. She wrote this article as a PC interfaither too afraid of questioning the system of Islam.

Her claims of Christian ‘extremists’ is absurd. I have no knowledge of political groups currently misusing the name of Jesus in criminal acts. Those who claim to be ‘Christian’ terrorists are in reality racists, Theocrats or other deviant groups trying to destroy Christianity through thier criminal acts.

Our American founding Fathers wrote our Constitution with the knowledge of keeping the Theocrat out of political office this goes for Atheists, Christians, Jews, Moslems and the list goes on. Obviously Ms. Boaz doesn’t under stand that.

We non muslims must take a stand against those in the left & moslems who are trying to destroy us from within and the outside. Irregardless of which Western country we live in or religion. If Ms. Boaz can get over her easily offended self… crack open a quran, read it and understand that the Islamic system would not help America or its problems but attempt to take American politics and International policies over.

How about it Ms. Boaz ready to ‘open your mind’ and do some meaningful research and challenge the islamists? Or will you become a unhappy muslima?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: