Update 9/3/07: Thanks to Svend over at Akram's Razor for the link to this LA Times article that furthers my contention on the US military-Fundamentalist Church tag team that has placed its unfortunate mark on the war on terror.
The article refers to a Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up:
"But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade.""
Also, the article talks about certain 'freedom packages' that were planned to be given to US military personnel in Iraq:
"What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers."
=================
Al-Jazeera English had a very nice report on the South Korean evangelical churches. The church that had sent the ill-fated missionaries to Afghanistan, according to the report, has the largest single congregation in the world, almost 750,000 strong. South Korea sends over 17,000 missionaries per year all over the world, second only to the US. Pretty amazing stuff. Really check it out:
First of all, let’s stop calling them aid-workers. They were Christian missionaries. They were sent by their church to spread the Gospel. And as Muslims we should have no problem with that.
Historically speaking, the Islamic Khilafa would not accept a nation preventing Muslim missionaries from entering, so why should Muslims take such offence when the tables are turned?
I find many Muslims very hypocritical in their outcry against Christian missionaries in Muslim lands while openly advocating Muslim dawah work the world over.
Moreover, if the missionaries are coming with aid in hopes of enticing the local population away from Islam, primary blame should go on the incompetent Muslim government.
However a strong argument can be made that the government and overall Afghan society has been weakened by outside occupational forces, so these missionaries are in essence adding salt to the wound inflicted by the US and allies – I can’t really argue against that geo-political reality.
That’s why I find it very disgusting when the two slain missionaries are called martyrs (as an interviewed representative from the S Korean church referred to them, adding that Islamic extremists take innocent lives while their missionary workers save innocent lives).
True they were murdered, but the realities on the ground cannot be ignored. If they had gone to Malaysia or Jordan and had been killed, I would indeed consider them honorable martyrs deserving our utmost respect.
However, in the context of the ongoing American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, these Evangelicals cannot be seen as innocent aid workers. With the perception of the war on terror as a continuation of the Crusades and the staunchly Christian US Army providing the armed forces, the Korean missionaries are seen as part and parcel of this 21st century campaign against Islam, no matter how nicely they package their presence in Afghanistan (as Christian aid-workers, NGO volunteers, people wanting to dance with orphans, etc.).
Whereas in the medieval Crusades, the Church instigated and sanctioned the attacks with the military forces following, the latest adaptation sees the military paving the way for the Church’s work. In both cases, I don’t see the Church as being innocent. Their guilt in the former case has been historically documented. As for the latter, the Church must show a greater level of political and cultural sensitivity when sending their missionary workers to hostile environments that are under the occupation of predominantly Christian military forces.
I’ll give the Koreans the benefit of the doubt and say they were being naïve.
Yeah, just naïve.
WAW
2 days ago
12 comments:
AA
What you are saying makes sense, that we shouldn't be hypocritical by not allowing Christian missionaries in our country. But then the question arises: If we allow them into our countries to spread their message, this would in turn lead to muslims converting and thus becoming 'Murtads', right? And there is a specific punishment for murtads, as I recall. So how would you manage that in an Islamic state?
AA- Junaid,
That's why we need to get over our infatuation with killing the murtad. As long as the act of leaving Islam is not treacherous to the wellbeing of the Islamic state, there really is no need for killing the apostate.
WA
I still think that's better than having an infatuation with Matt Dillon.. :-) j/k... but, why do you label it an 'infatuation with killing the murtad', rather than a true love for the shariah and hukm of Allah? (Let me say that this is considering an ideal Islamic state, where Islam as a whole has been implemented, not just the Hudood)
And another thing - how are we to judge WHEN 'the act of leaving Islam is treacherous to the wellbeing of the Islamic state'? If done AFTER the treachery has already occurred, then it just might be too late, and that, I think, is why this Hukm has been decreed - as a preventive measure. What do you think?
They are not naive, rather, useful idiots.
They should understand the bigger picture.
-------------------
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/
article.asp?ID=7106
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/
archives/8
AA- Junaid,
"but, why do you label it an 'infatuation with killing the murtad', rather than a true love for the shariah and hukm of Allah?"
I think it can be and is argued that killing the apostate is not a unanimously agreed upon hukm of the Shariah. There are many conditions that need to be fulfilled before such a hukm can be carried out.
"how are we to judge WHEN 'the act of leaving Islam is treacherous to the wellbeing of the Islamic state'?"
I think that is very dangerous precedent...to punish a criminal BEFORE he commits the crime. Surely, you can admit to the foolishness in such an approach.
Finally, check out Sh. Ali Gomaa's article to see his opinion on the murtad issue...
So, in sumation, you are debating killing a person/persons as they have chosen to leave Islam.
You are deciding under what circumstances this should take place.
If this should happen 'in the ideal Islamic state' perhaps.
There is no compulsion in religion unless one chooses Islam and then there is no changing?
The real frightening aspect of Islam is when I see individuals, some that I know (read) to be intelligent and articulate individuals, calmly talking about the appropriate time to kill another for changing his/her mind.
This dark side of Islam colors the rest.
Anon,
Not sure where you stand with regards to the Shariah and its position in the life of a Muslim, but I take the Shariah as the authoritative source of legislation as it is based on the Quran and Sunnah. I also firmly believe that the Shariah is the ultimate guarantor of justice.
That being said, if Muslim society as a whole comes to a realization that an established judgment (such as killing the apostate) needs to be re-evaluated, I believe the Shariah allows for that - as long as its done through the proper channels.
Your personal whims and my subjective desires do not constitute proper channels.
The reality of our current situation is that the majority of the Muslim world believe in the killing of the apostate. This teaching needs to be changed. You can either flat out say that the Shariah is wrong - and no one but the Ayaan Hirsi's and Irshaad Manji's will support you.
Or you can work from within the system to establish a valid interpretation that is more inline with the 21st century socio-political situation of the Muslim world. Sh. Ali Gomaa and Tariq Ramadan, to name a few, are trying to do that.
Anonymous,
My objective during this whole discussion was entirely to clarify a concept that I recalled hearing of. It does not mean that is the only way - or that I agree with it, but it is in the shariah and there is SOME reason why it is there, and that's what I wanted to know - the reason. That is why I was reviewing the various aspects of this issue. Like brnaeem said in the end, it could've been a totally different socio-political situation at that time, and it needs re-assessment, which I agree with.
May Allah forgive me for anything which I may have said out of ignorance.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
The major difference between Christian missionaries and Muslim da'ees in recent times is that the missionaries supplement their "da'wah" with food and other things people need. They don't just deliver the message; they go for the easiest targets, namely the very poor (as in Afghanistan) and those without a strong, literate religious heritage such as tribal peoples in India, and they use deception (such as by pretending to be aid workers). I don't know of Muslims using any of these tactics in da'wah efforts; they simply deliver the message, usually by handing out free literature on street stalls.
AA- Yusuf,
Good points.
"I don't know of Muslims using any of these tactics in da'wah efforts"
But that wasn't always the case. One of the original categories of legitimate recipients of Zakat were those 'whose hearts are to be won over' (9:60).
Although the missionaries end up capitalizing on the miseries of the local populations (which is quite devious, imo), I don't see their age-old tactics as being the real problem.
The real problem is the political context in which they are carrying out their missions. To take advantage of a natural disaster, such as a drought or earthquake is bad, but to compound the misery inflicted on a people thru a military occupation (by a Christian military no less) with Christian missionary tactics is downright sleazy.
You forget one BIG thing as muslims ... you do not have a say in all this ... at all. You are muslims, and have no rights to your own opinion (quran 33:36).
Christian missionaries are to be killed along with anyone they succeed in converting, and you should commit that murder whereever you are, as muslims. (it is the "law of allah" that says this, if you don't follow it, obviously you're not a muslim, but a rambling idiot)
That is muslim sharia law.
If you don't like it, leave islam, make a new religion that does have these rules.
There are lots of these religions available if you need to choose.
Tomcpp,
Hey, thanks for dropping by. God bless you and your family!
Post a Comment