I have received something via e-mail from a group called Muslims for Peace. This is affiliated with the Ahmadiya branch of Islam. I have written about them previously and recently attended one of their events at UC Irvine.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2013/03/ahmadiya-muslim-event-at-uc-irvine.html
I am unaware of anything that links this branch of Islam with acts of terror world-wide. It is a fact that they are actively persecuted within mainstream Islam since they claim a successor prophet to Mohammad. In Pakistan, it is illegal for them to publicly claim to be Muslims. My impression at the UCI event was that they pretty much follow the party line in other areas.
I want to highlight their article about "Myth #1 about Mohammad (below).
http://us6.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5fd3016b02&id=c7ffff6611&e=e9036174c1
(Gee. Is this a different incident from Khaybar?)
Look. I am not an expert on this ancient history, and maybe every word in the above account is true. But given the daily events going on today around the world, I find even this account troubling. Is there any similar history surrounding the life of Jesus Christ? Of course not. What I sense here is a never-ending connection between religion and war. Yes, Christians also fought the Crusades, but long after the presence of Christ on this earth. I am convinced He would have condemned it on both sides.
The idea of any religion being involved in killing except in self defense I find abhorrent.
You might also get a chuckle out of the article about Guantanamo Bay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nobody knows exactly what happened in the oasis of Medina, because most of the world wasn't paying attention and couldn't have cared less. It was one of hundreds of petty slaughters taking place in isolated little places all over the world, that year, the year before, the year after.
It has significance because it was recorded later as part of the history of Mohammed, that is, if what is recorded is accurate. It appears that the residents of what is now called Medina invited Mohammed, who needed to get the hell out of Mecca where his relatives wanted to off him, to come rule over them. It was a settlement with several tribes, some of them Jewish, who all wanted to stay, and wanted a neutral mediator to settle conflicts between them.
Mohammed brought with him his own agenda, and his own enemies, so the settlement became embroiled in the efforts of those in Mecca to send armies to exterminate him and his Meccan followers. The Jewish tribes in Mecca were particularly loath to break off trade relations with anyone not aligned with Mohammed, and were also loath to go out and fight Meccans on behalf of Mohammed. Since he had been accepted as supreme arbiter of the place, he considered this treasonable, and acted accordingly.
Thus, it is true that they were not killed as Jews for being Jews. It is, however, true that Mohammed's attitude toward Jews evolved in a manner similar to Martin Luther's many centuries later. Both men thought that once the Jews heard the Truth vouchsafed to them, they would realize that [Gabriel's revelation to Mohammed / Luther's reformation of Christianity] was the True expression of their own faith, and would come on board. Both were disappointed, and both reacted with anger and disdain.
However, when conquests outside of Arabia began, after Mohammed was dead, nothing that happened at Medina, or the nearby oasis of Khaybar, prevented the Caliphs from accepting the aid of Jews around Jerusalem, who welcomed the Muslims liberating them from Byzantine Christian oppression, nor from giving Jews an honored place in the first few caliphates.
This history, in turn, didn't stop the Almohades and the Fatamids from developing a mystical anti-Semitism centuries later, or neatly fitting the Khaybar story into it as justification.
That's how myths work... appropriate something that happened, twist what is known or thought about it to your own ends, and bandy it about as your rationale.
Naturally the Ammadiyah want to be able to say that Mohammed was not anti-Semitic, because anti-Semitic is a bad thing to be called. I suppose most Lutheran churches could tell you that Martin Luther was not really anti-Semitic (although some Lutheran pastors in Germany hailed Adolf Hitler for bringing some of Luther's more intemperate remarks to fruition). Perhaps we should be glad that they don't WANT to portray Mohammed as anti-Semitic.
Siarlys,
"Nobody knows exactly what happened in the oasis of Medina,"
Apparently, you do.
I know what is recorded by available sources, and historians who have studied those sources.
Post a Comment