When people get things wrong
There are times when people use the exact wrong words to express themselves. An example of this is this post by Egyptian-Australian blogger Neferteeti.
So the Egyptian government, or administrative court according to an article she cited in her post, passed another decision which reflects the general religious intolerance of the government towards non-Muslims. Why then would Neferteeti blame Islam, as a religion, for this?
She says:
Ever considered becoming a Muslim? Think carefully! Because it’s a strictly one way road… moreover, if you live in Egypt, the blessed government and even the juidiciary system will enforce this rule
And
and tell me, why is Islam so scared to let people choose? Why is the governemnt so determined to keep religion in the forefront of the average Egyptian’s life?
It is a well known fact that religious scholars of all religions, including both the Christianity and Judaism, have differed over a variety of topics and issues ever since all these religions sprang into being. Christians frequently tell me that the difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity is a religion of peace.
I will choose not to question that last statement, BUT do you mean to tell me that the Crusades were written somewhere in Christianity? Or that the Catholic Pope and other rulers and leaders at the time took the decision to carry out expeditions in the name of The Lord? If one was to blame anyone, would it be them or Christianity?
Do we blame Christianity, or the Aryan race, for Hitler’s mass murder of European Jews? Or do we blame one man, Hitler himself, for the actions taken by members of the Nazi party and the army of the Third Reich?
I should think the answers to the question would be: The men themselves (and not Christianity) as well as Hitler (and not Christianity nor the Aryan race).
It does not require a religious scholar nor a person of astounding knowledge to realize that the application of the different supposed rules of different religions are carried out differently from region to region and country to country. Compare Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Morrocco, Turkey and Egypt, if you need facts.
If you know all this, and I will suppose that you must have missed this in your anger over the decision, why do you blame the religion? Blame the government. Blame the administrative court judges. Blame Gomaa. But how could you blame a faith and a belief?
This is particularly true when the article Neferteeti cited has this particular bit:
“As a Muslim, I say that there is no limit to the freedom of religion and, without it, heaven and hell would be … meaningless as the Koran assures the individual freedom of belief and disbelief [and] in return [people] are responsible for their choice,” Mohammed Munir Mogahed, a founding member of Egyptians Against Religious Segregation, said recently in the Egyptian daily, Al Masry Al Youm.
The man, who stands with you in your anger and objections, makes the situation clear enough. If you disagree with this, what’s up with including this article in your post and asking your readers to check it out for more information?
I’ve learnt that the path to religious tolerance lies in carefully thinking through all the things we hear and understanding how those different from us, in matters of faith or belief, think. The Egyptian government, may it burn, does not seem to be doing this.
Why is it that some of us, rightful in our objections, are emulating their modus operandi?
License
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License.
Posted: May 19th, 2007 under Opinion, Islam, Weird Shit, Religion.
Comments: 16
Comments
Comment from sokari
Time: June 5, 2007, 3:57 pm
Your blog has been included in the Review of North African blogs on Pambazuka News
Comment from Maxxed`ouT
Time: June 30, 2007, 6:48 am
You should blog more often!
Comment from forsooth
Time: July 27, 2007, 4:44 pm
I haven’t read her piece, but the excerpt you included above makes no reference to the peacefulness or lack thereof of Islam. the two quotes above simply point out, and quite specifically at that, that in Egypt, being a Muslim is an immutable state if you wish you remain unharmed. that she chooses to blame Islam for this, and not the government, is a natural extrapolation from the widely held view (although not unchallenged) amongst Muslim scholars that leaving Islam (becoming an apostate) is punishable, by death or otherwise. of course there are scholars who have criticized this, but their opinion has been largely ignored in Muslim countries. a religion is what its practitioners make of it.
Comment from Faisal
Time: July 27, 2007, 6:44 pm
Forsooth,
This is because neither her post, nor my response, had anything to do with the peacefulness, or lack thereof, of Islam.
Her opinion was that Islam did not allow people to choose their religion. She specifically came to this conclusion because of the administrative court’s decision… in this particular case, of course.
Since she failed to use any other examples, I considered the article she used for support or which, she said, provided more information on the matter, in addition to her post, as the pieces that required refuting.
Now, for the two quotes, I will assume you’re referring to the first two quotes, since there are three clear quotes in my post. These two quotes are her views on the matter. I will not disagree with her, in fact, I agree that not being a Muslim in Egypt can be troublesome in many, many circumstances as many people, both Muslims and Christians that I know, and read for, have testified through personal experience.
Using the word unharmed is too much though.
Again, and for the sake of clarification, there have people that have been harmed based on their religious beliefs… but this is NOT the rule (it’s not the exception either… it’s somewhere in between; it happens, but only where certain conditions are “favorable” for discrimination or the causing of harm to non-Muslims. This can include a community of Muslims who have been mis-lead by others, police officers wrongfully exercising their authority
STILL, this does not mean that I would simply take her word for it simply because she says this to be true. Her two quotes, in this particular incident, are too extreme and generalizing and the choice of words is poor. Very, very poor. In fact, I would say that it is a choice of words to use when one wishes to instill fear in people and not one that, for example, one would write in a newspaper article, a book or intelligent, knowledgeable conversation.
Another point to make: A religion is NOT what its practitioners make of it ONLY. It’s false to claim otherwise. As for the widely held view that you spoke of, I have to admit that this is indeed true.
The ruling is ridiculous, discriminatory and extremely offensive to me personally BUT you do not blame a religion for the faults of idiots like these.
You really should read her post though before responding to mine, though I almost definite you will be in agreement with what she wrote.
Comment from forsooth
Time: July 30, 2007, 9:13 pm
indeed, your response does make mention of peacefulness. i assume you were using that as an example of why not to blame the a religion for the abuses of its practitioners, like the crusades. and as for harm, i said that being a Muslim is an IMMUTABLE state if you wish to remain unharmed. meaning that should a person leave Islam and embrace another religion (not be born into said other religion) he or she will, if even half what the human rights organizations say is true, not be able to pursue his or her life in peace in egypt. that’s harm, i would contend.
bardo i haven’t read her post yet but i personally believe that a religion is what its practitioners make of it, since if something is allegedly in the text but no one practices it, it has no bearing on the lives of adherents of the religion or on others. in brief, unless you put a tenet into practice, it might as well not be there for all the effect it has on society.
Comment from Faisal
Time: July 31, 2007, 6:13 pm
The crusades was just an example based on something that some Christian friends, namely yourself, tell me. I just happened to choose that because that’s the first thing that came to mind. I could have just talked about murder, which would have worked too.
See the thing is, if a religion says don’t do that, or doesn’t say anything on a matter or says do something, then it is not the fault of the set of teachings but the fault who are followers.
I do not see any other way about this.
As for how they are perceived by others, then what you said applies quite well in that case.
At the end of the day, I wouldn’t walk into Taliban controlled territory with a Star of David tattooed on my arm, for example, eve n if all Taliban fighters say they are Buddhists now, would I?
The Egyptian government has people in it who choose to apply forms of Islam that they WRONGFULLY think correct. They’re idiots. It would be as idiotic to blame the religion, instead of just them, because they choose to do that.
I would not say Judaism is a violent religion if a Rabbi murdered someone and I wouldn’t call Buddhists butchers if one of their order slaughtered a herd of cows.
THAT! That would be ridiculous.
Comment from hassan bashandi
Time: August 4, 2007, 1:39 am
I know you’re being sarcastic when citing the star of David tattoo as example as tattoos are haram in Judaism.
And a simple wiki search will tell you that buddhism especially on the Tibetan plateau had its fair share of violence
Jesus advocate the use of a sword (Luke 22:36-38)
Islam : Perhaps the Saudi flag pop to mind?
Comment from Faisal
Time: August 4, 2007, 2:40 pm
I’m sorry, perhaps my short-sightedness doesn’t allow me to see the point of your comment except maybe a strange desire to let us know that you know these things?
1. I don’t care, but didn’t know, if Judaism says it’s ok or not to get a tattoo.
2. I know they’ve had violence, what’s your point?
3. So? I’m not even going to bother checking that because I explicitly mentioned that I wasn’t discussing that. You might have noticed that if you’d read my previous comments?
4. Whaaaa? What is that in response to?
Could I ask that people please explain what they’re trying to say in a bit more detail for the slow amongst us (me that is)?
Thank you.
Comment from hassan bashandi
Time: August 4, 2007, 7:24 pm
I know it’s your blog but your post pubescent pugnacious arrogance is besides me. Anyway the Copts were, are, and always will be persecuted in the bantustan along the nile. It is irrelevant to point out a token billionaire or 2, as you probably will.
Just think of all of the derogatory names they have for us, my favorite is Adma zarka because god that cross is a heavy burden to bare in our beloved Egypt.
Comment from Faisal
Time: August 5, 2007, 10:22 am
La2 gamed.
Barring the possibility that you copied that insult from some book or website, I have to admit my disappointment if your level of English is at that level. Disappointment because you chose to insult me instead of respond.
Either way… *shrug*.
Comment from n
Time: September 20, 2007, 12:58 am
nice template, are you ever gonna post again?
Comment from Amillennialist
Time: August 1, 2008, 8:23 pm
Faisal,
The first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II to defend eastern Christians against Muslims waging centuries-old jihad against them.
The essential difference between Christianity and Islam is that when Christians commit murder, it is in violation of Christ’s commands. When Muslims enslave or slaughter those non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam, it is in accord with Mohammed’s command and example.
This is what you serve:
“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
Comment from Amillennialist
Time: August 1, 2008, 8:46 pm
hassan,
Your citation of Christ’s comment in Luke 22 is misleading, as it appears you’re implying that Jesus commanded violence as did Mohammed.
The context of that statement was that He was speaking to His Apostles, He was about to be murdered, and when one of them said, “We have two [swords]” (for eleven men!) Christ’s reply was, “That is enough.”
From this alone, it is clear that Jesus was not commanding offensive warfare to make the world Christian. He was telling the Apostles to provide for their own safety. They were going to be on their own, unlike a previous mission in which Jesus ordered them to make no provisions for themselves (not even money).
When you combine this with Christ’s warning to Peter (”Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword,” Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus opposed violence.
It is best to evaluate a religion by looking at its sacred text(s) in context.
Comment from Amillennialist
Time: August 1, 2008, 10:54 pm
By the way, the capital punishment required in Deuteronomy 13 was for the nation of Israel only. It was for those under the Mosaic Law only.
It was not a mandate for violence against non-Hebrews.
Comment from Faisal
Time: August 31, 2008, 10:17 pm
Seriously… this is getting really annoying. I am SICK of having to list to almost every single Christian that I get into a discussion with on religion tell me that Christianity is a Peaceful religion whilst Islam is a violent one.
Let me discuss the facts of today:
1. More violence happens in Christian countries than in Muslim ones (in terms of killings, rapes and so on and so forth).
2. There have been christian war atrocities committed by every single damn dictator from Ivan the terrible to Hitler and these people were christians commanding christian troops that killed, ravaged and pillaged.
3. MUSLIMS did not start World War One and Two.
Conclusions: FUCK OFF with you god-damned self-righteous bullshit. I know what the texts say, both of them. Thank you. You know what’s funny, even if what you say is correct, and im not saying it is or isn’t, then what are you saying? Muslims are sticking to their holy texts nowadays whilst hundreds of millions of Christians over the past century have chosen to deviate from it?
(That was a sarcastic remark FYI).
Thank you for your information Amillennialist. You have enlightened me beyond anything anyone could have ever informed me of this. Being raised a Muslim myself. In the Arab world. Living with other Christians in my country.
Oh! One second. Didn’t Christ say turn the other cheek? You might want to choose: do you fight fire with fire or do you not fight back? (Of course this is related to that ridiculous response about the origins of the crusades. Let’s say you are correct, though I certainly dont believe so… ya think they should have stopped maybe… or what about the bit after, when they kept going and attacked and killed and did all the other itsy bitsy thing).
Please, for the sake of people who can argue your arguments better… don’t frustrate them and myself by attempting to sound knowledgable and quote sources and all that nonsense.
You can’t argue worth sh*t.
Comment from Amillennialist
Time: September 16, 2008, 9:00 am
Profanity proves Mohammed was not a genocidal child rapist?
“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Qur’an 8:67).
“Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)” (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 and 65).
Certainly Christians commit evil acts.
What is at issue is whether or not such behavior is commanded or condoned by each religion’s deities.
Jesus committed no sin and commanded His people to love even their enemies.
Mohammed had his critics butchered and — since Allah calls him a “beautiful pattern of conduct” — Muslims must imitate him if they want to please Allah.
Some of the points you raise would be funny if not so tragic:
Faisal: “1. More violence happens in Christian countries than in Muslim ones (in terms of killings, rapes and so on and so forth).”
Yes, we in the West are constantly killing non-Christians and rape victims in obedience to the Sermon on the Mount.
Your assertion misses the fundamental fact of how those Muslim nations became Muslim: All who refused the “invitation” to Islam were enslaved or butchered.
It’s not hard to gain a monopoly when you kill the competition.
(By the way, do you have any evidence for this claim?)
Faisal: “2. There have been christian war atrocities committed by every single damn dictator from Ivan the terrible to Hitler and these people were christians commanding christian troops that killed, ravaged and pillaged.
First, Ivan was called “the terrible,” not, “prophet of Allah” and “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please Allah,” as was Mohammed.
Second, Hitler was no Christian. In fact, he lamented Germany’s Christian legacy, fantasizing about his success under Islam.
Third and most importantly, no “Christian” ruler waging offensive warfare or harming intentionally the innocent do so in obedience to Christ.
On the other hand, those who “kill and are killed for Allah” until “all religion is for” him, do so in fulfillment of Allah’s commands.
Faisal: “3. MUSLIMS did not start World War One and Two.”
As noted, Hitler longed for an Islamic Germany. He was also cozy with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who urged Nazi concentration camp workers to carry out their slaughter of innocent men, women, and children with diligence. Shall we mention Nazi Germany’s Muslim allies?
And you should know that Islam has been at war with the non-Muslim world since Mohammed first started slaughtering his fellow Arabs to make the world Islam.
Faisal: “FUCK OFF with you god-damned self-righteous bullshit.”
In your confused emotional explosion, you’re missing one crucial fact: I am neither touting nor confident in my own righteousness.
I have been citing your own god’s “holy” texts.
Faisal: “even if what you say is correct, and im not saying it is or isn’t, then what are you saying?”
I am saying what the texts say. You are free to draw your own conclusions, though I’d say from your reaction so far, they are not too positive.
It should be easy to verify the citations I’ve offered, since I’ve been specific and they’re are available in most libraries, bookstores, and online.
Since they are true, why wouldn’t you concede that fact?
Faisal: “Muslims are sticking to their holy texts nowadays whilst hundreds of millions of Christians over the past century have chosen to deviate from it?”
That is one valid conclusion that can be drawn. My purpose, though, was to correct your errors/misrepresentations.
Faisal: “Didn’t Christ say turn the other cheek? You might want to choose: do you fight fire with fire or do you not fight back?”
Did Christ forbid self-defense? Did he forbid a nation’s defense of its citizens’ God-given rights?
Please provide specific citations.
Faisal: “about the origins of the crusades. Let’s say you are correct, though I certainly dont believe so”
Well, a Great Islamic Historian would be able to do a quick search and discover Pope Urban II’s call for the first Crusade. Here’s one link: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2006/06/medieval-sourcebook-urban-ii-speech-at.html
The barbarism of later Crusades was unconscionable.
Faisal: “don’t . . . quote sources and all that nonsense.”
Yes, we mustn’t let facts get in the way. They’re so intimidating.
Write a comment