Islamophobia or anti-Muslimism
Zuiko Azumazi
"Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslimism"? As Professor Fred Halliday, the
well-known and authoritative scholar on Middle Eastern affairs and a
professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, puts
it, "The attack now is not against Islam as a faith but against Muslims as a
people ... accounting for the (racist) exclusion of Muslims"?
Digest:-
Thus, Halliday's objection is centred on the use of the neologism
'Islamophobia' when describing and/or accounting for the (racist) exclusion
of Muslims, feeling that the term 'anti-Muslimism' should be used in
preference (also see Halliday 1996). Four criticisms of the concept are
offered: first, that 'Islamophobia' is somewhat of a misnomer, and that it:
'misses the point about what it is that is being attacked: "Islam" as a
religion was the enemy in the past: in the crusades or the reconquista. It
is not the enemy now [.] The attack now is not against Islam as a faith but
against Muslims as a people, the latter grouping together all, especially
immigrants, who might be covered by the term' (Halliday, 1999: 898).
This point is echoed by Reisigl and Wodak's (2001: 6) more general criticism
of 'phobias': that they 'neglect the active and aggressive part of
discrimination' by focusing on racism as a collection of (pathological,
pseudo-logical or illogical) beliefs. In contrast to the thrust of the
'Islamophobia' concept, Halliday (1999) argues that the stereotypical enemy
'is not a faith or a culture, but a people' (ibid: 898) and therefore its
use is misleading, shifting analysis away from the 'real' targets of
prejudice: Muslims. ...
End digest.
Shouldn't we plumb for the "anti-Muslimism" neologism with all its explicit
'racial' overtones, rather than the bland, ersatz, "Islamophobia" with its
ties to euphemistic western politically correctness? Would the moderators
automatically deem, Halliday's substitute neologism, "anti-Muslimism" (ie.
'racist bigot') objectionable in rejoinders posted to this forum?
--
Peace
--
When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific
advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new
term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and
troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia. [UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
mugz
singing 100 bottles of beer on the wall in Farsi just before they get
on the same airplane I'm about to get on, and subsequently they all
demand seat belt extensions). 'Phobia' implys a fear.
As a Christian, I do hate Islam, as the New Testament teaches us to
hate falsehood and sin. Since I believe the New Testament, I cannot
simultaneously believe the Quran, since they are diametrically opposed
as to the person of Christ. From my perspective, Islam is the doctrine
of Anti-Christ. John 2:22 says Anti-Christ(s) is/(are) he/(them) who
deny the Father and the Son. Yet, as a Christian, I am taught to hate
the sin, but to love the sinner.
So, in short, I hate Islam but I don't fear it, and I dont hate Muslims
but I do fear them, so:
Muslimaphobia and Anti-Isalm work better for me.
mugz
Altway
"mugz" <tjord...@hotmail.com> wrote
>I don't hate Muslims, but I do fear them,
Comment:-
When you hear about criminals does that make you fear Christians?
> As a Christian, I do hate Islam, as the New Testament teaches us to
hate falsehood and sin. Since I believe the New Testament, I cannot
simultaneously believe the Quran, since they are diametrically opposed
as to the person of Christ.
Comment:-
Muslims honour Jesus and those who follow him.
As a Muslim I do not hate Christians though the Quran tells us that
they have falsified the message of Jesus.
When I read the Gospels I see that it is certainly true -
Jesus did not teach his own divinity, the Trinity or Vicarious Atonement.
but he id teach that salvation was by obedience to God.
We see that the teachings of Jesus are the same as that of the Quran
not diametrically opposed as you say.
But we see that the beliefs your church has inculcated in you is opposed to
the teachings of Jesus and the Quran.
> From my perspective, Islam is the doctrine
of Anti-Christ. John 2:22 says Anti-Christ(s) is/(are) he/(them) who
deny the Father and the Son. Yet, as a Christian, I am taught to hate
the sin, but to love the sinner.
Comment:-
>From the Islamic perspective Christians have misunderstood the teachings of
Jesus.
So we feel sorry for them.
They have made him into an Idol when, in fact, he said:-
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
19:17
Jesus did not do or speak of himself but what God instructed.
(John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49)
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
Therefore, if you wish to be a good follower of Jesus you have to "Surrender
to God" as Jesus did
> So, in short, I hate Islam but I don't fear it, and I dont hate Muslims
but I do fear them, so:
Muslimaphobia and Anti-Isalm work better for me.
Comment:-
So you have not only been misled by the propganda of those who want to
spread evil,
but you feel happy with it and do not wish to seek and find the truth.
I feel pity for those who have been mentally trapped by Satan.
Did not Jesus tell you :- "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free." John 8:32
Hamid S. Aziz
mugz
Altway wrote:
-snip-
> Comment:-
> When you hear about criminals does that make you fear Christians?
>
There are not many Christians in the world who go around specifically
targeting undarmed defensless civilains with bombings, decapitaions,
etc these days. This modern age really cannot be compared with any
previous age in human history. Humanity as moved on from the times of
horses and carts, (which were there for 1000's of years), to the age of
modern transportation, communiations, information, freedom of speech,
freedom of thought, womens rights etc in a span of a little over 100
years. 230 years ago the USA was born, and was the only democratic
republic in the world. Much has changed in this era. Predominatnly
Muslim countries seem to be resisting the change and instead, prefer to
stay living in the past, and retain its barbaric culture and practices
of the past.
> > As a Christian, I do hate Islam, as the New Testament teaches us to
> hate falsehood and sin. Since I believe the New Testament, I cannot
> simultaneously believe the Quran, since they are diametrically opposed
> as to the person of Christ.
>
> Comment:-
> Muslims honour Jesus and those who follow him.
In truth, you honor a different Jesus than the one described in the New
Testament. The Jesus discribed in the New Testament is a very different
person than the one described in the Quran.
> As a Muslim I do not hate Christians though the Quran tells us that
> they have falsified the message of Jesus.
Many Muslims do hate Christians, and there is not a predominatnly
Muslim nation of the face of the Earth where a Christian can openly
speak his mind without fear of reprisal against them or their families.
> When I read the Gospels I see that it is certainly true -
> Jesus did not teach his own divinity, the Trinity or Vicarious Atonement.
> but he id teach that salvation was by obedience to God.
The New Testament is full of many passages that refer to both the
humanity of Jesus and the Divinity of Jesus. Some such as yourself
would rather focus only on the passages that refer to the humanity of
Jesus and ingore the passages that refer to His Sonship or Divinity.
> We see that the teachings of Jesus are the same as that of the Quran
> not diametrically opposed as you say.
Yes, I am sure you do. By selectivly chosing passages in the New
Testament which, when taken out of context of the entire new Testament,
change the message of the Jesus of the New Testament.
> But we see that the beliefs your church has inculcated in you is opposed to
> the teachings of Jesus and the Quran.
>
You mean the Jesus OF the Quran.
> > From my perspective, Islam is the doctrine
> of Anti-Christ. John 2:22 says Anti-Christ(s) is/(are) he/(them) who
> deny the Father and the Son. Yet, as a Christian, I am taught to hate
> the sin, but to love the sinner.
>
> Comment:-
> >From the Islamic perspective Christians have misunderstood the teachings of
> Jesus.
> So we feel sorry for them.
> They have made him into an Idol when, in fact, he said:-
>
> "And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
> Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
> "While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
>
Funny I think that you should quote John, who also wrote "in the
beginnig was the Word, and the Word with God and the Word was God.. and
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory"
If you count the Gospel of John as being trustworty, why not accept
this as well? Why not worship Jesus? According to the Gospels, Jesus
was worshiped from the day He was born. According to the Gospels, He
was the only begotten Son of God.
> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
> that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
> 19:17
This was a rhetorical question, Jesus also said he was "I AM" (the name
God used for Himself in the Old Testament when speaking to Moses) - and
the Jews subsequently took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy.
>
> Jesus did not do or speak of himself but what God instructed.
> (John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49)
> "..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
> things." John 8:28
>
Surely, the concept that God take human form is alien to Islam. But,
according to the Bible, in the beginning, man was created in the very
image of God, (in Genesis), unlike the animals, man was unique -
created in Gods image. Genesis also refers to the Lord walking in the
Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. The idea that God can have a
human form is not alien to Christians at all.
> "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
> heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
> will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
> and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
> works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
> YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
>
The concept that God has a truine nature is described very clearly in
the New Testament. Jesus is refered to as being Devine, as is the Holy
Spirit. I don't have any diffuclty accepting this as many things in
this world have a truine nature. H2O (matter) exists as solid (ice),
liquid (water) and vapor (steam). Time itself is truine in nature,
(past, present, future) - we live in a three demisnional world (height,
width and depth) - so the fact that God would also have a truine nature
is again, not hard for us to imagine or accept.
> Therefore, if you wish to be a good follower of Jesus you have to "Surrender
> to God" as Jesus did
>
Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No one comes to the
Father except by Me'
> > So, in short, I hate Islam but I don't fear it, and I dont hate Muslims
> but I do fear them, so:
> Muslimaphobia and Anti-Isalm work better for me.
>
> Comment:-
> So you have not only been misled by the propganda of those who want to
> spread evil,
> but you feel happy with it and do not wish to seek and find the truth.
> I feel pity for those who have been mentally trapped by Satan.
> Did not Jesus tell you :- "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
> make you free." John 8:32
>
I think the facts speak for themselves. The behavior of Muslims is
clear for anyone in the world to see. While perhaps many Muslims are
peace loving people, its pretty clear that there are a significant
number that cheer on those who commit terrorist acts and support such
atrocities. In my mind, those who cheer, support and encourage such
acts are as guilty as those who commit them; (As the New Testament
teaches, they become partakers with them).
mugz
Altway
"mugz" <tjord...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> When you hear about criminals does that make you fear Christians?
> There are not many Christians in the world who go around specifically
targeting undarmed defensless civilains with bombings, decapitaions,
etc these days.
Comment:-
So you want to talk of numbers.
>This modern age really cannot be compared with any
previous age in human history. Humanity as moved on from the times of
horses and carts,
Comment:-
You want to talk about times.
You need to consider several facts:-
(1) Do you not know that different countries are
at different levels of development in wealth, organisation, education etc.
That it takes time for influences to spread uniformly.
(2) That the USA could not have reached its prosperity and development
without
(a) the influences it received from past civilisations, including the
Islamic one
(b) the immigration of people from all over the world
(c)the vaste untapped resources it had.
(3) That the US government and corporations through political, economic and
monetary
policies exploited for their own benefit and impoverished many other
countries world wide.
reducing the people to chaos, ignorance and disease.
(4) Apart from progress in science, technology and material prosperity
there has been social and moral degeneration and bigotry in the USA.
It has created many psycholgical, social and environmental problems.
Having once been a stimulus to world progress many people, including myself
now think that the USA is the greatest obstace to global progress
>> Muslims honour Jesus and those who follow him.
> In truth, you honor a different Jesus than the one described in the New
Testament. The Jesus discribed in the New Testament is a very different
person than the one described in the Quran.
Comment:-
That displays your ignorance.
If you read your Gospels inteligently instead of simply repeating what the
Churches teach
you will find that there is no difference.
We honour the real Jesus who brought the Message from God
The Quran rectifies the unjustified inventions.
> Many Muslims do hate Christians, and there is not a predominatnly
Muslim nation of the face of the Earth where a Christian can openly
speak his mind without fear of reprisal against them or their families.
Comment:-
You must know that Christians and Jews lived amicably with Muslims in
all Muslim countries until recently when Western aggression against Muslims
changed this tolerance.
> The New Testament is full of many passages that refer to both the
humanity of Jesus and the Divinity of Jesus. Some such as yourself
would rather focus only on the passages that refer to the humanity of
Jesus and ingore the passages that refer to His Sonship or Divinity.
Comment:-
Nowhere does Jesus claim to be God or that salvation was by his crucifixion
or that God was a Trinity or that God was a man who died, or Mary was the
mother of God.
>> "And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
> Funny I think that you should quote John, who also wrote "in the
beginnig was the Word, and the Word with God and the Word was God.. and
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory"
Comment:-
John was not Jesus and you have takenhis symbolic language literally.
The end of the sentence should read "the Word was God's." otherwise
"the Word was with God" does not make sense.
Nor does "In the beginning was the Word", because God is described as
Eternal, "without beginning or end"
"We beheld his glory AS OF the only begotten of the Father."
It does not say "the glory of."
The only begotten refers to the Word of God, not God..
The "Word was made flesh" is like saying " the policeman is the Law made
flesh".
>> "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
>> one,
that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Mt
>> 19:17
> This was a rhetorical question, Jesus also said he was "I AM" (the name
God used for Himself in the Old Testament when speaking to Moses) - and
the Jews subsequently took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy.
Comment:-
So whenever you see the words "I am" you will regard them as implying that
the person
claims to be God!!!
He was speaking of God, not himself. Did he say: I am "I Am"
When the Jews wanted to stone him Jesus explains in John 10:33-38
by poining to Psalms 82:6. The term gods with a small "g" and "children of
God"
is explained as "unto whom the Word of God came."
In John 1:12-13 "sons of God" is defined as those "which were born not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And
this is further defined John 3:5-7 as being spiritually revived.
The name "Son of God" is defined in Romans 8:12 as those who are led by the
Spirit of God.
>> Jesus did not do or speak of himself but what God instructed.
(John 6:38, 57, 7:16, 8:28, 10:37-38, 12:49)
"..I do nothing of myself; but as the Father hath taught me, I speak these
things." John 8:28
> Surely, the concept that God take human form is alien to Islam. But,
according to the Bible, in the beginning, man was created in the very
image of God, (in Genesis), unlike the animals, man was unique -
created in Gods image. Genesis also refers to the Lord walking in the
Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. The idea that God can have a
human form is not alien to Christians at all.
Comment:-
You are taking things in a naive literal sense.
Do you really think man looks like God or God looks like man?
Is an image the same thing as the original?
>From the Islamic point of view the Spirit of God is in man, that is
what gives him the attributes of God, This makes him an image
But sin, the Fall from Paradise
has made the spirit dormant and it requires resurrecting through the Word of
God.
(We see the Quran as the Word of God as are the teachings of Jesus and Moses
and other genuine Messengers (i.e. those who carry the Word))
To illustrate: There is the Sun in heaven, it radiates rays and these form
an image in the mirror.
Though there is a continuity here, the rays and the image are not the sun.
John 1:18 tells you "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten son
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"
>> "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom
>> of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
> The concept that God has a truine nature is described very clearly in
the New Testament. Jesus is refered to as being Devine, as is the Holy
Spirit.
Comment:-
I note that you were unable to give me chapter and verse where this is
"clearly" stated.
> I don't have any diffuclty accepting this as many things in
this world have a truine nature. H2O (matter) exists as solid (ice),
liquid (water) and vapor (steam). Time itself is truine in nature,
(past, present, future) - we live in a three demisnional world (height,
width and depth) - so the fact that God would also have a truine nature
is again, not hard for us to imagine or accept.
Comment:-
You are speaking about the Created world. That does not apply to the
Creator.
John 1:18 tells you
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten son which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"
We know God by His Word. The only begotten refers to the Word.
God is One according to his own Word.
>> Therefore, if you wish to be a good follower of Jesus you have to
>> "Surrender
to God" as Jesus did
> Jesus said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No one comes to the
Father except by Me'
Comment:-
He was not literally a road. But yes, he was the Way, Truth and Life
in his day. Moses was before that and Muhammad was after him.
As I said salvation is by the Word of God no matter who carries it.
> I think the facts speak for themselves. The behavior of Muslims is
clear for anyone in the world to see. While perhaps many Muslims are
peace loving people, its pretty clear that there are a significant
number that cheer on those who commit terrorist acts and support such
atrocities. In my mind, those who cheer, support and encourage such
acts are as guilty as those who commit them; (As the New Testament
teaches, they become partakers with them).
Comment:-
Are you speaking about people who are called Muslim, or profess to be Muslim
and adhere to the teachings of Islam to various degrees?
Is the focus of your attention only on a small percentage whom you
disapprove of?
But why do you not do the same for Christians? Are all those who are called
Christian paragons of virtue? Are there no criminals among them and no
perverts
and depraved people?
I think that if one looked at the real situation we would find that the
percentage of those
who do evil is much greater among those regarded as Christians than those
regarded as Muslims.
Hamid S. Aziz
John Smith
> "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslimism"?
How about a third choice "anti-Islam" and also distinguishing between all
three?
"Islamophobia", to me, means "an irrational fear of Islam".
"anti-Muslim", to me, means you are against Muslims.
"anti-Islam", to me, means you are against Islam.
The three are not the same. You dont seem to distinguish between "Muslim"
and "Islam".
I could meet a person who has many Muslim friends yet dislikes Islam on the
studied basis of the philosopy within.
Neither "Islamophobia" nor "anti-Muslim" would fit in this case.
> As Professor Fred Halliday, the
> well-known and authoritative scholar on Middle Eastern affairs and a
> professor of international relations at the London School of Economics,
puts
> it, "The attack now is not against Islam as a faith but against Muslims as
a
> people ... accounting for the (racist) exclusion of Muslims"?
That is not racism (because as you well know, Muslims come from many
different racial backgrounds).
It is anti-faith, for want of a better word.
> Shouldn't we plumb for the "anti-Muslimism" neologism with all its
explicit
> 'racial' overtones, rather than the bland, ersatz, "Islamophobia" with its
> ties to euphemistic western politically correctness?
Well knowing you Zuiko, you should choose whatever word you think would give
you maximum political leverage and pay no attention as to whether it is
accurate or not, right?
Cordially
John Smith
mugz
Altway wrote:
snip
> (1) Do you not know that different countries are
> at different levels of development in wealth, organisation, education etc.
> That it takes time for influences to spread uniformly.
>
Yes, I also realize that 230 years ago the USA became the only
democratic republic in the world. Demorcracy is spreading much faster
than Islam I might add.
> (2) That the USA could not have reached its prosperity and development
> without
> (a) the influences it received from past civilisations, including the
> Islamic one
> (b) the immigration of people from all over the world
> (c)the vaste untapped resources it had.
>
Again, the USA was considered at the time an experiment in government
that was doomed to failure, no other demorcatic repubic existed at the
time. The idea that that masses from various cultures from all over the
world could coexist making thier own laws seemed to many, to be
preposterous.
In 1776 the population of the entire Earth was less than a billion, I'm
wondering what resources existed in North America that did not also
exist elsewhere. The Earths natural resources at that time were largely
untapped.
> (3) That the US government and corporations through political, economic and
> monetary
> policies exploited for their own benefit and impoverished many other
> countries world wide.
> reducing the people to chaos, ignorance and disease.
First off, i disagree with your notion that the prosperity of the US is
the cause of impoverishment in the rest of the world. Every country
where the USA has had significant social / economic influence has
prospered. It takes time, granted - keep in mind that 75 or so years
ago the USA was in the midst of a great depression and was quite
impoverished itself. Also look at Japan and Germany, all of Europe for
that matter. Democracy and a free market economy have benefited every
country that has embraced them.
Contrary to your claim, I happen to belive that the USA has been the
single greatest force for good and freedom in the world since it's
inception.
> (4) Apart from progress in science, technology and material prosperity
> there has been social and moral degeneration and bigotry in the USA.
> It has created many psycholgical, social and environmental problems.
>
Unlike other counties, people in the USA are free to follow any
religion they chose, and change thier religion as often as they like
without fear for their own lives or the lives of their families. How is
this bigotry? It would seem to me that countries where people are not
permitted to follow the dictates of their conscience, especially in
spiritual matters, are much more bigoted.
Many countries claim (falsly) to permit religious freedom, when in
reality the culture and in actual practice they deny it.
> Having once been a stimulus to world progress many people, including myself
> now think that the USA is the greatest obstace to global progress
>
I suppose it would depend on your definition of 'progress'. The
policies of the US have always been to promote democracy, religious
freedom and free market economies around the world.
> >> Muslims honour Jesus and those who follow him.
>
> > In truth, you honor a different Jesus than the one described in the New
> Testament. The Jesus discribed in the New Testament is a very different
> person than the one described in the Quran.
>
> Comment:-
> That displays your ignorance.
> If you read your Gospels inteligently instead of simply repeating what the
> Churches teach
> you will find that there is no difference.
> We honour the real Jesus who brought the Message from God
> The Quran rectifies the unjustified inventions.
The New Testament describes a Jesus that existed before the world
began, by means of the Holy Spirit was born to a virgin, died for the
sins of the world, rose again from the dead and ascended back to the
Father. This is very different from the Jesus in the Quran.
I realize that you presume the Quran to correct these mistakes, but I
consinder that presumption to be without merit. I chose to believe
those that knew Jesus when he was alive here on earth and saw Him and
those whom He taught, rather than someone who came along 700 years
later, had never met Him and did not know Him.
> Comment:-
> You must know that Christians and Jews lived amicably with Muslims in
> all Muslim countries until recently when Western aggression against Muslims
> changed this tolerance.
What evidence can you present to support this notion? From what I have
read, this is simply a myth. Christians and Jews living in Muslim
countries have never been able to freely practice their religion. The
main duty of Christians is to share the Gospel with others, and in most
Islamic states, it's illegal for a Christian to share his faith with a
Muslim. Things are changing a little in placed like Turkey, but even
there Christians who share thier faith are being arrested under Article
301 for 'insulting Turkishness'.
> > The New Testament is full of many passages that refer to both the
> humanity of Jesus and the Divinity of Jesus. Some such as yourself
> would rather focus only on the passages that refer to the humanity of
> Jesus and ingore the passages that refer to His Sonship or Divinity.
>
> Comment:-
> Nowhere does Jesus claim to be God or that salvation was by his crucifixion
> or that God was a Trinity or that God was a man who died, or Mary was the
> mother of God.
>
It was foretold by Isaiah in 9:6:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the
government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The disciples of Jesus taught that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.
Jesus did not write any of the New Testament, the entire New Testament
was written by His Disciples and His Apostles. They are what we rely
upon, thier testimony, that he was Devine.
I dont understand what problem you have with the word 'Trinity' - Jesus
commanded his disciples to go into all the world, baptising them in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - the word 'Trinity'
simply refers to 'the father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost'.
I have heard it said that the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible, which
is true, - neither is the word Bible in the Bible... so? Its just a
quicker and more simple method of saying 'the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit'. Jesus in effect said, 'Go into all the world, baptising
them in the name of the Trinity' - is that really so hard to
understand?
> Comment:-
> John was not Jesus and you have takenhis symbolic language literally.
> The end of the sentence should read "the Word was God's." otherwise
> "the Word was with God" does not make sense.
> Nor does "In the beginning was the Word", because God is described as
> Eternal, "without beginning or end"
>
Perhaps you need to read more of the Bible, in Isaiah 44:6 God said:
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of
hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides
Me"
and Jesus said in Rev 1:17
Fear not; I am the first and the last: I he that lives, and was dead;
and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell
and of death."
> "We beheld his glory AS OF the only begotten of the Father."
> It does not say "the glory of."
> The only begotten refers to the Word of God, not God..
John clearly says 'The Word was God' (not the Word was Gods).
> The "Word was made flesh" is like saying " the policeman is the Law made
> flesh".
>
Additionally, the disciples of the John clearly also understood this,
those who studied at the feet of the John the Apostle wrote:
St. Polycarp (Disciple of John, 69-155 AD) to the Philippians: Now may
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal
High-priest Himself, the _God Jesus Christ_, build you up in faith and
truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in
forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in purity;
and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us
with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on _our
Lord and God Jesus Christ_ and on His Father {that raised Him from the
dead}.
St. Ignatius (Disciple of John, died 108 AD) to the Ephesians: I have
become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have
acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love
in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring
up yourselves _by the blood of God_, ye have perfectly accomplished the
work which was beseeming to you.
St. Ignatius (Disciple of John, died 108 AD) to the Ephesians: There is
one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and
not made; _God existing in flesh_; true life in death; both of Mary and
of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.
St. Ignatius (Disciple of John, died 108 AD) to Polycarp: Await Him
that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became
visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for
our sake, who endured in all ways for our sake.
St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons 120-203 AD, Disciple of Polycarp) Against
the Heresies Book 1: John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated . . .
properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was
in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning;
"_and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God
is God_.
How is it that you can call Jesus 'Messiah' yet believe that for some
reason He failed to impart His message properly to His disciples, or
that He chose Disciples who changed His message? Was the Messiah a
failure in your eyes?
> Comment:-
> So whenever you see the words "I am" you will regard them as implying that
> the person
> claims to be God!!!
Of course not, you have to read in context to see why the Jews wanted
to stone Him for saying that, Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM"
(using the name "I AM" that God gave to Himself in the Old Testament in
Exouds 13, God told Moses that His name was "I AM" and to tell the
children of Israel that "I AM" has sent you)
The Jews at the time clearly understood Jesus, as they at that time
took up stones to kill HIm.
Jesus also prayed in Gethsemani confirmhing His own preexistance in
John 17:
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH
YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN
mugz
mugz
Altway wrote:
> Comment:-
> Are you speaking about people who are called Muslim, or profess to be Muslim
> and adhere to the teachings of Islam to various degrees?
> Is the focus of your attention only on a small percentage whom you
> disapprove of?
When I was younger, I used to think this way too. I thought Islam was
generally a peaceful and good religion but just had a few backwards
fanantics that were going around doing all these terrible things in the
name of thier religion, but were not 'really' Muslims.
More recently however, especially since 9-11, I like many others,
decided to take a much closer look at Islam in order to try and
determine exactly what it is about Islam that creates these crazy
people.
I was absolutly amazed at the kind of things being spouted from the
pupets of Mosques:
Preaching at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest shrine, Sheikh
Sudais called Jews "the scum of humanity. . .the rats of the world. .
.prophet killers. . .pigs and monkeys." He prayed to God to "terminate"
the Jews. http://www.ibb.gov/editorials/09844.htm
A recent sermon preached at the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Dr. Abder
Rahmaan Al-Sudays, one of the senior clerics in the country, included a
passage from the Quran warning Muslims against Jews. "The great enemy
of Allah and his people are the Jews," he said. "Their greatest allies
are the Christians who believe in the Trinity."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/world/stories/070702dnintsaudimain.45803.html
SAUDI ARABIA: Saudi Arabia TV2 carries a live sermon from the holy
mosque in Medina. Shaykh Salah Bin-Muhammad al-Budayr: "O God, defeat
the usurper Jews. O God, shake the land under their feet, instill fear
in their hearts, and make them booty for Muslims and a lesson to
others. O God, shake them up. O God, destroy them. O God, scatter them.
O God, annihilate them soon.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=105002000
These are just a few examples. Then I found a site called memritv.org
where I can watch TV in Muslim countries with English subtitles and
transcripts, and WOW - the kind of hatrid that comes out of so-called
'religious leaders' is absolutly appalling!
Here are a few recent transcripts:
1. Why Muslims must hate Christians:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=992
2. Why Muslims must beat thier wives
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=226
Prayers for the Annihilation of Jews and Christians:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=87
Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-Awa, Secretary-General of the International Union
for Muslim Scholars, Explains the Rationale for Supporting Female
Suicide Bombers:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1287
Syrian University Professor Praise Arab Mothers for Sacrificing Their
Sons:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1134
I could go on and on and on - visit the site.
My point is, I discovered its not just a 'few' Muslims who support
terrorism, it would appear to be the majority.
I was very naive. I have been to many different churches in my life and
never in my life have I heard a 'holy man' preaching death and hatred
from the pulpet. I am sure such thigs DO happen, there are exceptions,
but it such things are 'normal and accepted' in most Muslim countries.
mugz
Altway
"mugz" <tjord...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Contrary to your claim, I happen to belive that the USA has been the
single greatest force for good and freedom in the world since it's
inception.
>> (4) Apart from progress in science, technology and material prosperity
there has been social and moral degeneration and bigotry in the USA.
It has created many psycholgical, social and environmental problems.
>> Having once been a stimulus to world progress many people, including
>> myself
now think that the USA is the greatest obstace to global progress
> I suppose it would depend on your definition of 'progress'. The
policies of the US have always been to promote democracy, religious
freedom and free market economies around the world.
Comment:-
I do not believe there is real Democracy in the USA.
The government is run by a group of power and wealth holders who also
control the
Corporations for their own interests and own the media of communication and
control
and manipulate information and opinions.
> The New Testament describes a Jesus that existed before the world
began, by means of the Holy Spirit was born to a virgin, died for the
sins of the world, rose again from the dead and ascended back to the
Father. This is very different from the Jesus in the Quran.
Comment:-
If that were so, it could not have been history on earth.
According to Luke Chapter 24, the disciples thought Jesus was dead
but when he appeared among them they thought it was a ghost.
But Jesus assured them he was still flesh and bones.
He was only taken up to heaven later.
The Quran affirms that he was born of a virgin and that he was taken up to
heaven
but also rightly says that the Jews did not kill him and that there was
confusion surrounding
the event described as crucifixion.
It is also clear from the words of Jesus that salvation is not by belief in
his crucifixion
but by obedience to God.
>> Nowhere does Jesus claim to be God or that salvation was by his
>> crucifixion
or that God was a Trinity or that God was a man who died, or Mary was the
mother of God.
> It was foretold by Isaiah in 9:6:
> For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the
government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Comment:-
The verse does not say : "shall be" but "hall be called".
Di you wonder why that is?
Do you wonder why Psalms 82:6 says to the Jews "ye are gods, and all of you
are children of the Most High."?
Why John 1:14 says about Jesus "we beheld his glory, the glory AS OF the
only begotten" and not the "glory of"?
> Jesus did not write any of the New Testament, the entire New Testament
was written by His Disciples and His Apostles. They are what we rely
upon, thier testimony, that he was Devine.
Comment:-
Correct. The NT consists of the opinions of certain people and not all of
whom met Jesus.
And even the authorship is in doubt and there are 20 other Gospels that have
been excluded
from the NT and repressed that give a different view of what Jesus taught.
> I dont understand what problem you have with the word 'Trinity' - Jesus
commanded his disciples to go into all the world, baptising them in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - the word 'Trinity'
simply refers to 'the father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost'.
Comment:-
He did not say that they were together God.
But I have no objection to the idea that Religion (not God) is presented to
us
by the three.
It is clear from what Jesus taught and even Paul that the only God was the
Father in Heaven.
See:-
John 1:18, 5:37, 6:29,46, 13:16 15:1-2, 4:28 17:3, 20:17
Romans 15:6 1Corinthians 1:3, 3:22-23, 8:5-6, 11:3, 12:4-6 2Corinthians
1:2-3, 11:31, 13:14 Ephesians 1:2-3, 17 6:23, 4:4-6 Galatians 4:4-6
Philippians 1:2, 4:19-20 Colossians 1:2-3 1Thessalonians 1:1 2Thessalonians
1:1-2 1John 4:12, 2John 1:3 1Timothy 1:2, 17, 2:5, 6:15-16 Titus 1:4
Philemon 1:3 James 2:19 Jude 1:1 1 Peter 1:2-3
>> John was not Jesus and you have takenhis symbolic language literally.
The end of the sentence should read "the Word was God's." otherwise
"the Word was with God" does not make sense.
Nor does "In the beginning was the Word", because God is described as
Eternal, "without beginning or end"
> Perhaps you need to read more of the Bible, in Isaiah 44:6 God said:
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of
hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides
Me"
Comment:-
That clearly refers to God, what Jesus calls the Father in Heaven.
> and Jesus said in Rev 1:17
Fear not; I am the first and the last: I he that lives, and was dead;
and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell
and of death."
Comment:-
I do not see this in Rev 1:17
However, Revelations is highly symbolic and you could interpret it as you
like.
But "He that lives and was dead." cannot possibly refer to God.
> St. Polycarp (Disciple of John, 69-155 AD) to the Philippians:
Comment:-
None of the people you quote are Jesus
> How is it that you can call Jesus 'Messiah' yet believe that for some
reason He failed to impart His message properly to His disciples, or
that He chose Disciples who changed His message? Was the Messiah a
failure in your eyes?
Comment:-
He imparted his message alright, but the true Church was repressed.
I quote Jesus who said:-
" I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that
shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto
you." John 16:12-14
Even Paul noted that corruption of the messge had set in soon after Jesus
departed.
But nevertheless some of his teachings about love and charity most certainly
got through
and had an influence in transforming the world.
The Messages from God constitute an ideal that only gradually change things,
being eroded and forgotten and disorted by mixing with worldly things.
That is why a succession of Prophets and Messengers are required each ading
a brick to the structure.
Hamid S. Aziz
John Smith
> pupets of Mosques:
But that does not matter (in one sense).
If these "puppets" are out of line with respect to Islamic doctrine and the
Quran, then I expect other Muslims to denounce them and remove them from
place of authority.
*BUT* if these "puppets" are in line with respect to Islamic doctrine and
the Quran then there is nothing other Muslims can do.
So what matters is what the Quran says, what is Islamic doctrine.
After all, do you wish me to judge Christians by what, say, 1 crazy
preacher says from the pulpit?
It is the origin and source of ideas that matters most of all.
Cordially
John Smith.
John Smith
> democratic republic in the world. Demorcracy is spreading much faster
> than Islam I might add.
I am not convinced that either is true.
You will find areas of the globe where democracy has no sway at all.
Dictators, Juntas, Military rule, Autocrats is common, even locally within a
country.
For example
Burma is ruled by the Army, democracy is kept at bay, Aung San Suu Kyi
is under house arrest.
Pakistan is currently under military rule
Zimbabwe, Toga, North Korea, Tunisia are ruled by Dictators, some
relatively benign, some malign.
And Islam is growing in certain parts of the world.
In other parts of the world it weakening as Muslims abandon their religion
as they become disenchanted with it.
> First off, i disagree with your notion that the prosperity of the US is
> the cause of impoverishment in the rest of the world. Every country
> where the USA has had significant social / economic influence has
> prospered.
I am not a US citizen and I think it is a mixed bag.
I think the US has benefited many countries (I could mention the current
Presidents PEPFAR program) but at times US Foreign policy is exceptionally
crude and shortsighted. Todays friends are tomorrows enemies, and in which
case - was it sensible to export weaponry to unstable countries, as it has
done? The US has unforgiveably interfered in the election processes of other
countries. You could also look up the "Monroe doctrine". The US also
dispenses more aid to poor countries than most other countries. The US does
not believe in its own trade doctrines either, if it did, it would not
protect its farming and steel industries by subsidies (but having said that
France is guilty here and other parts of Europe).
So, a mixed bag. On the whole, I like the US.
> Democracy and a free market economy have benefited every
> country that has embraced them.
I agree. It has. There is not a single country that got rich by embracing
communism.
Adam Smith's Capitalism is not perfect, but it the least evil system.
Cordially
John Smith
John Smith
> this as well? Why not worship Jesus? According to the Gospels, Jesus
> was worshiped from the day He was born. According to the Gospels, He
> was the only begotten Son of God.
Well that is what it all hinges on.
Muslims see Allah as so solitary, it is "shirk" to associate partners with
God.
I believe I am correct as saying that it is regarded as unforgiveable.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims also (incorrectly) believe Christians
regard Sonship to mean that Allah had some type of physical sexual
relationship with some female, the progeny of which was Jesus. Even some
Christians misunderstand their own religion. The words "Father" and "Son"
are picture words, no more, no less. "The Word of God" is better, as that is
functional language from a Christian perspective.
Because every Holy Book be it the Quran, the Bible, the Tipitaka, the Avesta
must use concepts that are understandable by humans to convery information.
And if the religion has the concept of God, frequently it uses
anthropomorphism to convey eternal ideas that apply to God. There is no
other choice.
And I believe that overwhelming majority of Muslims also, as well as a few
Christians, are unaware that the Bible teaches that Jesus pre-existed before
4BC, that he was not human, that from the point he was born, he was
dual-natured.
If you want to communicate, you will have convey more accurately what you
wish to convey.
If you say, Jesus is the "Son of God" or use words like "begotten" - what
exactly do you mean by that?
If I asked Christians to explain what they understand by the phrase "Son of
God", I am not sure what they would say.
Cordially
John Smith
Altway
"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote
>> If you count the Gospel of John as being trustworty, why not accept
this as well? Why not worship Jesus? According to the Gospels, Jesus
was worshiped from the day He was born. According to the Gospels, He
was the only begotten Son of God.
Comment:-
The Gospel according to John contains his ideas but also the teachings of
Jesus. We judge it by the Quran.
We also see that it has been misinterpreted by Christians according
fictions created by the Church.
There is no worship of Jesus in it nor is he the "only begotten son".
Nor did Jesus claim to be God, but one sent by God..
The "only begotten" refers to the Word of God and Jesus in the flesh was a
carrier of a word.
The phrase "son of God" refers to those who were led by the Spirit or Word
of God.
> Well that is what it all hinges on. Muslims see Allah as so solitary, it
> is "shirk" to associate partners with
God. I believe I am correct as saying that it is regarded as unforgiveable.
Comment:-
I do not think that the word "solitary" is appropriate as it presupposes
that there are others
from which He is isolated. In fact, as He surrounds all things He is not
solitary at all.
He is One and Unique, the self-existing source of all things.
To suppose that there can be more than one Allah means that the concept has
been
misunderstood and that becomes a fundamental cause of psychological
disintegration
and, therefore, of inner conflicts, contradictions and suffering.
It is impossible that this state of affairs can lead a person to Paradise
(i.e to self-fulfilment, inner harmony, peace, completeness)
> The overwhelming majority of Muslims also (incorrectly) believe Christians
regard Sonship to mean that Allah had some type of physical sexual
relationship with some female, the progeny of which was Jesus. Even some
Christians misunderstand their own religion. The words "Father" and "Son"
are picture words, no more, no less. "The Word of God" is better, as that
is
functional language from a Christian perspective.
Comment:-
It is precisely because Christians misunderstood the symbolism of the
phrase "son of God" or "children of God" that Islam denied this and
used the phrase "servant of God" or Vicegerent instead.
They had fallen into the anthropomorphic trap.
"The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when
there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all
things ? " 6:101
It has to be remembered that Islam is a new formulation of Religion and its
ideas must be self-consistent.
It is not necessary that the formulation must be the same in all religions
and the differences in formulation do not mean difference in the truth to
which they relate. It is only misunderstandings that falsify them.
> And I believe that overwhelming majority of Muslims also, as well as a few
Christians, are unaware that the Bible teaches that Jesus pre-existed
before
4BC, that he was not human, that from the point he was born, he was
dual-natured.
Comment:-
This is a misunderstanding. According to the NT Jesus was certainly born of
a woman, lived and died as a man.
The divinity is supposed to come from the Word and Spirit.
>From the Islamic point of view all human beings have the Spirit in them -
Adam existed in Paradise.
It is only owing to rebellion, sin, the Fall that man came to earth where
the spirit became dormant
And it the Spirit that is to be resurrected. This is done through the
Messengers who carry the Word
and in whom the Spirit is Active.
Hamid S. Aziz
John Smith
>> >> If you count the Gospel of John as being trustworty, why not accept
>>>> this as well? Why not worship Jesus? According to the Gospels, Jesus
>>>> was worshiped from the day He was born. According to the Gospels, He
>>>> was the only begotten Son of God.
>>>>
>>
>> Comment:-
Sorry but you have got your attribution above wrong.
I did not write the above. Mugz did.
I commented on what Mugz wrote.
>> Comment:-
>> I do not think that the word "solitary" is appropriate as it presupposes
>> that there are others
The word "solitary" is fine. It can mean "alone". There is no presuppostion
on my part.
The idea of Allah being the only God is not that difficult a concept to
swallow.
Really the thinking that non-Muslims will find this difficult to accept
should die.
>> from which He is isolated. In fact, as He surrounds all things He is not
>> solitary at all.
Yes but since Allah is the source of all other things, it follows that
before any creation of any kind he was alone, solitary.
>> Comment:-
>> It is precisely because Christians misunderstood the symbolism of the
>> phrase "son of God" or "children of God" that Islam denied this and
>> used the phrase "servant of God" or Vicegerent instead.
Who did the Christians misunderstand? Their own book as currently written?
Jesus?
>> They had fallen into the anthropomorphic trap.
>> "The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child,
when
>> there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of
all
>> things ? " 6:101
You are mistaken. The Christians on many occasions have made it clear they
understand anthropomorphism and they discount this. It is Muslims who
mistakenly think that Christians have fallen into anthropomorphism (as you
have) when they mention "Son of God" or "Children of God" because Muslims
have never taken the trouble to understand what they mean by their own
concepts.
>> It has to be remembered that Islam is a new formulation of Religion and
its
>> ideas must be self-consistent.
What is new?
>From my studies of Islam I find nothing new or revolutionary but a return to
age old-concepts.
That is not derogoratory but just my findings.
>>>> And I believe that overwhelming majority of Muslims also, as well as a
few
>>>> Christians, are unaware that the Bible teaches that Jesus pre-existed
>>>> before
>>>> 4BC, that he was not human, that from the point he was born, he was
>>>> dual-natured.
>> Comment:-
>> This is a misunderstanding.
That is unclear. I do not know if you referring to my understanding of
Christianity or my understanding of Christians or Christians understanding
of their holy book or Christians understanding of church teaching or
possibly something else.
>> According to the NT Jesus was certainly born of
>> a woman, lived and died as a man.
Yes Christians believe this.
But *IN ADDITION* they believe what I stated and it is in mentioned in their
NT. I can point out the verses that support what I claim about their
beliefs. Saying that Jesus was born of a woman, lived and died as a man does
not alter that.
>> The divinity is supposed to come from the Word and Spirit.
I am not sure what you mean by that so I cannot disagree or agree.
>>From the Islamic point of view all human beings have the Spirit in them -
That is the same in Christianity. But it also teaches that God himself has
his own spirit.
>> Adam existed in Paradise.
>>It is only owing to rebellion, sin, the Fall that man came to earth where
>>the spirit became dormant
I believe Christianity teaches that the Fall affected all the parts of what
it means to be human.
That is
- The body is fallen - it get olds, it is prone to disease and
ultimately we die.
- The emotions are fallen - we are prone to greed, envy, lust. The
emotions can move us to murder.
- The mind is fallen - we can believe lies, we can become mentally ill,
sche
- We are sexually fallen - homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia are
examples of this
But it also teaches we are spiritually fallen
Cordially
John Smith
Altway
"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote
Re: > > "John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote
If you count the Gospel of John as being trustworty, why not accept
this as well? Why not worship Jesus? According to the Gospels, Jesus
was worshiped from the day He was born. According to the Gospels, He
was the only begotten Son of God.
> Sorry but you have got your attribution above wrong.
I did not write the above. Mugz did.
I commented on what Mugz wrote.
Comment:-
Sorry for the mistake. I am not sure how this happened.
> The word "solitary" is fine. It can mean "alone".
Comment:-
I do not think that the word "solitary" is appropriate as it presupposes
that there are others from which He is isolated. In fact, as He surrounds
all things He is not
solitary at all.
> Yes but since Allah is the source of all other things, it follows that
before any creation of any kind he was alone, solitary.
Comment:-
You might be right, but we do not know.
I was speaking about the present condition.
On the other hand before this Universe was created He might have created
others.
And after this He might create others.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zuiko Azumazi
news:Mc-dnd0WJab...@pipex.net...
<snip> ...
> How about a third choice "anti-Islam" and also distinguishing between all
> three?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't your choice a politically correct euphemism? <G>
But maybe this erudite paper, "Imagining the Muslims in Belgium", by
Professor Herman De Ley will help you understand and intellectually grasp
Professor Halliday's conception of the portmanteau term "anti-Muslimism" and
what its intrinsic hostility connotes (you must study it in full). See this
link:-
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/CIE/deley3.htm
Extract:-
Imagining the Muslims in Belgium:
"Enemies from Within" or "Muslim Fellow-Citizens"?
by Herman De Ley
Already, a new racism is legitimizing this progressive polarization between
the so-called autochthonous population and the so-called immigrants, not
only in Belgium but in other European countries as well. This new racism,
which is actually accompanying the construction of the European unity, can
be identified as anti-Muslimism. While it is being constructed along the
selfsame lines as the anti-Semitism in the Thirties, this new European
racism is based on the ethnicization of cultural, i.e. religious differences
between "Europeans" and "Muslims". It operates by identifying "Turk" and
"Muslim", "Moroccan" and "Muslim", and generally "immigrant" and "Muslim".
As Fred Halliday formulates it,"it involves not so much hostility to Islam
as a religion (...) but hostility to Muslims, to communities of peoples
whose sole or main religion is Islam and whose Islamic character, real or
invented, forms one of the objects of prejudice". Feeding on this
anti-Muslimism and fuelling it at the same time, right-wing extremist
parties are exploiting the situation, in Belgium as well as in other
countries of the E.U., in order to destabilize democracy and to win popular
votes.
End extract.
As you see it's not my idea or even a Muslim idea. It's a western idea from
highly qualified and well-respected European academic's, who happen to know
a lot about Islam. Who should we rely on, in an epistemic context, since you
say you know? Should we chose these undoubted experts, other hostile
critics, or yourself?
--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
John Smith
> before any creation of any kind he was alone, solitary.
>
> Comment:-
> You might be right, but we do not know.
> I was speaking about the present condition.
> On the other hand before this Universe was created He might have created
> others.
> And after this He might create others.
Assuming what you say is true, are you also saying that it was necessary for
Allah to create 1 or more Universes, plus other creatures just to keep him
company? That Allah is not psychologically comfortable with being on his
own?
Moreover, since what he creates is so much less than himself, how could they
possibly satisfy Allah?
It would be crudely equivalent to imagining that an Ant Colony would satisfy
a human Man (it is very crude analogy I admit). The Ant Colony might be
amusing to the Man, but it will never talk to him, it is not his
interllectual equal, it will never sexually satisfy him, and whatever
pleasures the Man has (music, books, sport) - there is no way the Ant Colony
will share those. The Ant Colonies horizons are very limited - food and
water and keeping predators away.
Only a Woman will really do.
Cordially
John Smith
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Assuming what you say is true, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't the natural opposite of your opening premise then 'assuming what you
say is untrue"? Can we then safely assume that you are making an 'a priori'
judgement (i.e. involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a
necessary effect; not supported by fact)? Where does this miasma lead us?
What has all of this diversionary wild goose chase got to do with the
"Islamophobia and anti-Muslimism" topic per se? Are you trying to persuade
subscribers that "Islamophobia and anti-Muslimism" doesn't exist in factual
reality? By analogy, isn't this negationist mind-set symptomatic of the
combative tactic taken by the deniers of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust?
On what epistemological basis to you derive that negation about
"Islamophobia and anti-Muslimism"? Doesn't the anti-Muslimism behaviour
described by both Professor Halliday and Professor De Ley take place in
reality? Did you bother to study what's in these links and what they had to
say descriptively on the "Islamophobia and anti-Muslimism" topic?:
http://www.angelfire.com/dc/mbooks/fredhalliday2.html
Extract:-
Presumably you, therefore, disagree with Samuel Huntington's notion that
there will be a "Clash of Civilisations" between the West and Islam? Do you
not think that after the demise of Soviet Communism, Islam is perceived by
the West as the new enemy?
Fundamentalist Muslims will say anti-Muslimism in the Western media proves
that kufr or Western society is endemically and eternally anti-Islamic. You
hear a lot of talk about how there has always been a conflict between the
West and Islam and now it's the time of the new Crusades. What I say in
Islam and the Myth of Confrontation is there are these prejudices but it's
not a product of a continuous history that goes back to the seventh century.
It's to do with the uses of anti-Muslim prejudice in particular political
contexts today. I look at Western Europe, Israel, Serbia and India.
End extract.
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/CIE/deley3.htm
Extract:-
AND:
Extract:-
Imagining the Muslims in Belgium:
"Enemies from Within" or "Muslim Fellow-Citizens"?
by Herman De Ley
Already, a new racism is legitimizing this progressive polarization between
the so-called autochthonous population and the so-called immigrants, not
only in Belgium but in other European countries as well. This new racism,
which is actually accompanying the construction of the European unity, can
be identified as anti-Muslimism. While it is being constructed along the
selfsame lines as the anti-Semitism in the Thirties, this new European
racism is based on the ethnicization of cultural, i.e. religious differences
between "Europeans" and "Muslims". It operates by identifying "Turk" and
"Muslim", "Moroccan" and "Muslim", and generally "immigrant" and "Muslim".
As Fred Halliday formulates it,"it involves not so much hostility to Islam
as a religion (...) but hostility to Muslims, to communities of peoples
whose sole or main religion is Islam and whose Islamic character, real or
invented, forms one of the objects of prejudice". Feeding on this
anti-Muslimism and fuelling it at the same time, right-wing extremist
parties are exploiting the situation, in Belgium as well as in other
countries of the E.U., in order to destabilize democracy and to win popular
votes.
End extract.
Or are you just objecting to these words because they may describe your own
behaviour?
"Verbal disputes', as a subject, has been raised before and soundly
rebutted. See these transcripts in the archives:-
As you say: "Are these questions too difficult for you to answer?"
At least they have not been posted in the fallacious "begging the question"
or "loaded question" form, so popular with Islamophobes and anti-Muslimism
commentators in this forum.
But it's good to see you concede that attacks on Muslims and Islam based on
fallacies is unconscionable. I've been arguing this for ages. See this link
for the number of times I've used this signature below:-
Something must be rubbing off, finally! <G>
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com