My understanding of Islam is: it encompasses Islam the religion, Islam as a political doctrine, and Shariah Law as it’s judiciary branch; and that any unflattering speech or graphic representation of Islam, Allah or Muhammed must be considered “Blasphemy” which is punishable up to and including death ...
This broad definition of “blasphemy” is of course in direct conflict with the First and Second Amendment of the Constitution ...
In reading the Qu’ran verse 8:12 - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” is very clear that disbeliveers should be murdered where ever they are found - this requirement of the Qu’ran is not only in direct conflict with the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution, it is just plain murder, which is punishable by law established by the Constitution ...
So, the question is: how does a Muslim reconcile the conflict of Qu’ran, Hadith and Shariah with the US Constitution ?
For a literalist reading of those verses you quoted above, I don’t see how reconciliation between these contrasting values is possible.
Based on what Christain approaches I’ve seen toward similar sections of the Bible, it seems like the consensus is that such sections are either taken out of context or are metaphorical in some way and not intended to be read literally. But either of these approaches goes out the window when someone is reading the Bible as ‘God’s literal Word Of Truth.’
On a related note, it seems like there might be a translation problem with the above verse, specifically with the pronouns. If Allah is casting terror, is it Allah who will be striking off heads and fingertips, or Allah’s followers? Based on the grammar, it seems implied that it is the followers doing the deeds. But then, who is actually casting terror? A mass of people going about beheading and be-fingering others sure will cause a lot of terror all by themselves.
For a literalist reading of those verses you quoted above, I don’t see how reconciliation between these contrasting values is possible.
On a related note, it seems like there might be a translation problem with the above verse, specifically with the pronouns. If Allah is casting terror, is it Allah who will be striking off heads and fingertips, or Allah’s followers? Based on the grammar, it seems implied that it is the followers doing the deeds. But then, who is actually casting terror? A mass of people going about beheading and be-fingering others sure will cause a lot of terror all by themselves.
My conclusion is; reconciliation is only possible if the political and legal aspects, or branches, of Islam are discarded or modified to adhere to Constitutional law -
my question comes from not being a Muslim and having limited knowledge of individual freedoms within Islam, can any given individual make such decisions and continue to practice Islam with the blessings of his or her Mosque ?
The translation of Qu’ran 8:12 comes from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com which has the expertise to translate from the original Arabic, and is but one of some 30+ instances where lethal consequence is prescribed for “non-believers”
My conclusion is; reconciliation is only possible if the political and legal aspects, or branches, of Islam are discarded or modified to adhere to Constitutional law
You could use the muslim community in Detroit as an example of accomodation with the U.S. Constitution, or the muslim community in Murfreesboro, TN. In Tennessee especially, muslims fear the xtian community more than the other way round. These are only two of many examples of practicing muslims here in America. And as they weren’t forcibly imported into this country, one would assume that they’re here on their own accord. That means they will abide by the Constitution and not sharia law which states that we infidels should be slaughtered. It also shows that islam can be altered to accomodate a western, more secular society. Let’s hope that they export that idea to their original homeland where sharia law reigns supreme for the local caliph/dictator.
my question to the 2 communities you mention (and all other Muslim communities around the US) would be;
Do you support the position of your National Representative CAIR joining with International Muslim representative OIC in demanding that Obama “punish” the offending film maker and that the UN construct an International Law which punishes any individual or Nation that disrespects Islam, Muslims or Muhammed in any sense what-so-ever ?
Both actions clearly against the Constitution and in direct conflict with the Qu’ran or Shariah Law
. . . .that the UN construct an International Law which punishes any individual or Nation that disrespects Islam, Muslims or Muhammed in any sense what-so-ever ?
Gee, if they want that done, how about broadening it to include disrespecting christianity, Judaism, etc., atheism, and agnosticism? From what little I know of the Quran, it would seem to have to be banned and all copies destroyed because of recommendations to harm non-believers in Islam.
Gee, if they want that done, how about broadening it to include disrespecting christianity, Judaism, etc., atheism, and agnosticism? From what little I know of the Quran, it would seem to have to be banned and all copies destroyed because of recommendations to harm non-believers in Islam.
Occam
yeah, how about the Bible, Torah, Jesus and God - let’s have “laws” protecting them too
(which of course would also violate the Constitution)
It would seem that religion is already protected here, at least an individual’s right to practice it without discrimination by the national or state governments. The question is: if that religion seeks to harm or discriminate against other beliefs and or disbeliefs, would that religious tenet be allowed in the US and the answer is of course no. as to a UN sanction, I rather doubt that the US government would ever sign such a ridiculous restriction of human rights.
. . . .that the UN construct an International Law which punishes any individual or Nation that disrespects Islam, Muslims or Muhammed in any sense what-so-ever ?
Gee, if they want that done, how about broadening it to include disrespecting christianity, Judaism, etc., atheism, and agnosticism? From what little I know of the Quran, it would seem to have to be banned and all copies destroyed because of recommendations to harm non-believers in Islam.
Occam
IMO, any country that does not practice the “seperation of church and state” and enforces religious laws which violate “personal rights” should be BANNED from participation in the UN altogether.
It would seem that religion is already protected here, at least an individual’s right to practice it without discrimination by the national or state governments. The question is: if that religion seeks to harm or discriminate against other beliefs and or disbeliefs, would that religious tenet be allowed in the US and the answer is of course no. as to a UN sanction, I rather doubt that the US government would ever sign such a ridiculous restriction of human rights.
According to PressTV, a complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday.
“Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation, stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said.
The US government is a signatory to this covenant and has to respect it. Therefore, an individual or an NGO (non-governmental organization) can file a lawsuit against the president of the country for breach of the covenant, he added.
IMO, any country that does not practice the “seperation of church and state” and enforces religious laws which violate “personal rights” should be BANNED from participation in the UN altogether.
If I read correctly, there are basically 50 Islamic Nations scattered around Africa and the middle east, and at least 35 of those 50 Islamic Nations ptactice government under strict, or fairly strict, Shariah Law, meaning the Religious Body, the Political Body and the Legal Body are a single entity -
add to that encompassed religions of the far east such as China and Japan, and we learn quickly that our Republic and secular form of Government is badly outnumbered in the “mob mentality” of democratic vote at the United Nations
translation = we can hardly BAN such a majority, but we sure as hell can stop funding them
According to PressTV, a complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday.
“Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation, stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said.
The US government is a signatory to this covenant and has to respect it. Therefore, an individual or an NGO (non-governmental organization) can file a lawsuit against the president of the country for breach of the covenant, he added
The claimant may be hard pressed to file suit on atricle 18 as Sec.3 of that article expressly states:
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
there is a limitation on the freedom of religion as to the fundamental rights of “others”. This could be interpretated to mean freedom of expression.
And article 27 is a bit of a stretch in preventing a parody (even if it was laughably innacurate), of a religious belief. The movie in no way prevents muslims from exercizing their beliefs IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY!
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language
I see no violation of their religious freedom here! This whole issue sounds like a red herring IMO.
Yes, and that sounds suspiciously like a scare tactic meant to paint Obama in a corner. The old damned if you do… meant to embarass the administration into placing sanctions on the freedom of expression. It’s especially touchy during an election year when one false slip of the tongue or pen can lose the election. And we’re geting closer every day.
