Sunday, November 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
FoxNews says "An Al Qaeda leader, the head of a designated terror group, a confessed jihadist-in-training — it's a 'Who's Who' of controversial figures linked to radical Islam, and in some cases terror, that a FoxNews.com investigation reveals have attended weekly prayer sessions on Capitol Hill since the 9/11 attacks."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
In contrast to the links in my previous post, the link below suggests that the oppression of women is not mandated by Islam itself, but is rather created by sociological conditions. The author argues that women and men have the same religious obligations, as provided by the Qu’ran. The author also cites a number of verses suggesting that women have a duty to seek education, much as do men. The Qu’ran condemns female infanticide, which was apparently widely practiced prior to Islam. Finally, in response to the verse directing that males receive twice the inheritance of females, the author suggests that whereas the man must support his family with the inheritance, the woman can do as she pleases.
I also found interesting the following video, discussing the compatibility of feminism and Islam. The woman discussing their compatibility seems to ignore the actual content of Sharia law, and speaks instead about the compatibility of feminism with the secular governments and institutions of certain Islamic countries.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Typing "human rights" and "Islam" into Google seems a great way to find nothing. So instead I asked an Indonesian woman to help me find something worth talking about. She pointed me to this event from 2009 because it was the first time she'd participated in a human rights anything.
As I read this article, a few things immediately jumped off the page. The first being the comment made by the author that simply the ability to have this discussion in Malaysia was a step in the right direction. That such repression of an ideal we Americans take for granted everyday is rampant in places as secular as Malaysia and Indonesia took me aback. I assumed those types of things occurred in Afghanistan, but in southeast Asia?
The second thing that really struck me from the internal discussion were the competing ideas for the concept of basic human rights. That there was a mainstream push for "equality" that does not seem to live up to its billing as well as a push for what I can only classify as a westernized equality of religious ideals rooted in constitutional protections. What happens to these insufficient changes and doctrines with respect to meeting the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights or even organizations like Human Rights Watch? How much progress is sufficient?
Obviously there is a problem in the area of women's rights in the family in many Islamic countries and there are significant strides being made that are not televised. But to what end? Are we expecting Islamic women to have the freedoms of Catholic women in the US or Atheist women in the Netherlands? 70 years ago, few women were in the American workforce. 100 years ago they couldn't vote. A few hundred years ago, the property rights of women varied by state. If we hold the Islamic women's rights movement to a western standard, we'll be standing here waiting quite some time. Hopefully they have a shorter learning curve.
I wanted to see what the Qu’ran itself says about the rights of women, and I came across the following website in the process. Of particular note in the Qu’ran are a number of verses suggesting that women are inherently less valuable than men (see, for example, the verses regarding inheritance and bearing witness). For comparison, however, many Bible verses taken out of context are only marginally more favorable to women (see also below).
Several of the articles that I found on the interaction between Sharia law and women’s rights echoed these ideas.
http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html (though admittedly, this isn’t the most unbiased of websites).
Though this isn’t directly related to the extent that Islam respects human rights, the French burqa ban provides some interesting insights. In particular, it suggests that many European countries (including, as discussed below, the French), perceive that Islam treats women as inferior by forcing them to wear this traditional garb. I have provided a few links below describing the ban and reactions to the ban. One interesting fact: women who wear one in public receive a small fine and are forced to attend citizenship classes, whereas men who force a woman to wear a burqa receive a substantial fine and potential prison time.
Some basic information: http://www.smh.com.au/world/contentious-veil-ban-sails-through-french-senate-20100915-15cqo.html
A Saudi woman’s blog favoring the ban: http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/the-french-burqa-ban/
Another Muslim woman’s discussion of the ban: http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/12-burka-the-other-view-620--bi-10
Monday, November 8, 2010
It has a decent wikipedia page for background, but the full text of the Cairo Declaration is here:
It affirms at the outset that it is a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life.
Moving on from the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, Ayatollah Khomeinei states that the basic fundamental rights are: the right to live, the right to be free, the right to benefit from justice, the right to welfare.
www.iranchamber.com/history/akhamenei/works/human_right_islam.pdf (see page 7)
Lastly, I'd like to link to this site, which uses a great deal of scripture and Quran references to develop the author's positions on human rights, and it is a good summary.
Of particular note for this week is the Rights of Enemy Combatants, as we will be discussing war.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The link above provides a short piece on the potential issues with this voter approved ban and the lawsuit that will challenge the law.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Out of the 7 Current Major Conflicts claiming 1,000 or more lives per year, 5 are motivated by Islam as set forth by at least one of the belligerents involved in the conflict. By Comparison, none of those conflicts were motivated by any other religion.
14 out of 20 lesser, ongoing violent conflicts are either directly motivated by Islam or fought by a people or country to which over 85% of its adherents are Muslim.
The link takes you to the current ongoing military conflicts. You'll have to click on the info about each conflict and each country in order to verify the results of my research.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
- "Jihad" is often used as a term referring to national liberation. (We should be careful about applying the label of "Islam" to what is essentially a political movement.)
- In response to Osama Bin Laden's fatwas calling for "Jihad" against the West, Sachedina says "This argument for terrorism as a legitimate means of conduct in war is a clear departure from the classical rulings which regard the ethics of war as important part of jihad."
Obviously, to state that "Islam is a violent religion" is taking a complex issue and reducing it to a level of simplicity that is naive, especially in the law profession. To get a closer look on the issue I researched many sites and I thought this line of blogs might be the most thought provoking: http://www.danielpipes.org/990/what-is-jihad. I wanted to start with this article because it points out that jihad is not a rare occurrence in modern society. It occurs very frequently. In fact, it seems our society is numb to jihad. We hear about religious attacks almost every day. And, the grisly reality jihad plays in our modern culture cannot be simply wished away until a form of non-violent jihad is proclaimed by moderate Muslims as the only modern option for Islam.
Daniel Pipes, the author of the blog above, expounded on some of the atrocities of Sudan’s state-sponsored jihad. I have many close friends from Sudan and one in particular who barely escaped jihad with his own life. His name is Malual and as a young boy he had to outrun the jihadists who murdered his father in cold blood and openly raped the women and girls at their family home. At only 8 years old, Malual almost died many times on a treacherous journey to move undetected to the Sudanese border. He eventually found refuge in Ethiopia (only to be turned away) and ultimately made it safely to Uganda, completely on foot with no worldly possessions. He said his faith kept him strong. He talks about the hatred he experienced first hand, but it is the love of Christ that allows him to move on in forgiveness. His forgiveness is surprising! Check out this gripping website for more info on the Lost Boys of Sudan: http://www.allianceforthelostboys.com/. Malual’s reality of terror from militant Islam seemed worlds away until it hit America on 9/11.
Merely typing “jihad 9 11” in Google produces some very unique sites. Many sites are extremist and could be the prototype of “Islamophobia” as discussed in class. An example is “History of Jihad” which outlines various arguments why Islam should be stopped and invites professors and scholars to join the debate (perhaps we should join in because what I read did not seem balanced): http://www.historyofjihad.org/. I also came across the Loyalist party which is dedicated to the eradication of Islamic threat around the world. http://www.loyalistparty.com/. I left disgusted by these sites due to the sheer lack of knowledge and the message of hate they spread.
The reality is, 9/11 was planned and carried out by radical Muslims mostly from Saudia Arabia. Here is a website that profiles the terrorists from 9/11. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml. It’s interesting to think about how the jihadists lived amongst Americans for months prior to 9/11. Did they ever see humanity or want to renege on their commitment to terror?
Even today as I looked at updated election results I ran across this article and almost kept on going: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39969792/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/. A tragedy like this would be headline news before 9/11, rather than just another article about militant uprisings. It appears jihad and terrorism now go hand in hand…which is why it’s no longer a blurry concept for the Western World. If one’s beliefs determine one’s behaviors, then I only hope that those who believe that Islam is not a violent religion would begin to gain control and thrust out of the modern Islamic belief system.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
I want to first say that I found many of the links I present below from wikipedia. Instead of citing to wikipedia though, I wanted to verify the veracity of the articles citations. I found that the cites used were in fact good ones.
This is a general site, with menus branching off to various other places. The other cites seem to be as legitimate.
Some interesting facts about Islam and terrorism, as well as, the meaning behind the word "jihad."
Jihad in it's literal meaning is to struggle. As taught in the Quran, jihad more commonly means a battle between oneself and against others. The jihad against others only against those who first attack Muslims. However, when the word is used to describe actions against third parties, jihad still requires that the battle cause the least possible amount of damage to life and property.
Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one’s own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil. The propagation of Islam through the tongue and hand is accomplished in large measure by supporting what is right and correcting what is wrong. The fourth way to fulfill one’s duty is to wage war physically against unbelievers and enemies of the Islamic faith. Those who professed belief in a divine revelation—Christians and Jews in particular—were given special consideration. They could either embrace Islam or at least submit themselves to Islamic rule and pay a poll and land tax. If both options were rejected, jihad was declared.
Modern Islam places special emphasis on waging war with one’s inner self. It sanctions war with other nations only as a defensive measure when the faith is in danger.
The Qu'ran seeks to encourage and promote peace. Violent actions undertaken are by Mullā to interpret the Qu'ran in a way largely inconsistent with its plain meaning and the way a majority of Mullā's interpret and encourage the proliferation of its meaning.
The tradition prevalent among the Muslims of attacking the people of other religions, which they call Jihād, is not Jihād of the Divine religious Law (Islāmic Sharī‘ah). Rather, it is a grievous sin and a violation of the clear instructions of God and His prophet.
The correlation for Jihad and the Christian bible can be found in:
the Bible says about Jesus Christ, “And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem; and
(Philippians 1: 27)
That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel.
This charge I commit onto you … fight a good fight; holding faith, and a good conscience.
There are scholars of Islam who credit other scholar of Islam with being gravely mistaken in understanding the issue of Jihad, and considered the unjustified killing of human beings by sword a religious duty. These people, these Scholars write, because of the distortion of their hearts, wrongly interpreting some of the Mutashabihat (complex and multifaceted) verses of the Holy Qur’an equated Islamic Jihad to rebellion, and associated self-concocted imprudent beliefs to Islam.
Many peaceful Islamic scholars credit the extreme form of Islam to poverty and systematic economic injustice, much of it stemming from national imperialism surrounding the United States agenda and politics with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. These Islamic followers that contend violence and terror is the route to serving the Prophet have their ideas perpetuated by the condemnation of their entire religion, the continued occupation of Islamic countries, and the general move toward resource depletion by the leaders of Islamic counties or other countries. The disconnect rest with the lack of humanitarian resources directed toward the people living in these countries and not simply the governmental establishment.
Robert Paper is an American political scientist known for his work on international security affairs, especially the coercive strategies of air power and the rationale of suicide terrorism. He has studied every suicide terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. More than half of all suicide attacks were carried out by secular groups and individuals. He writes that more than 95 per cent of all suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common is not religion, but a specific political goal to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly.
Although terrorist leaders may harbour other goals, history shows that the presence of foreign combat forces is the principal recruiting tool used by terrorist leaders to mobilise suicide terrorists to kill us.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Are "reason" and "sanity" the opposite of religion?
Is taking religion out of the political debate the answer for restoring reason?
Or do we need more faith?
This Washington Post article offers some surprising answers and insights: http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jordan_Sekulow/2010/10/imagine_more_religion.html
Tuesday, October 26, 2010