Editor’s Note: A friend, Dean Muehlberg, recently attended a seminar on Middle Eastern Culture. He graciously offered to share his notes and thoughts with us about this seminar and Islam. This is the second and final installment. The first installment was published here on 3/10/2011. I’m sure Dean will appreciate your comments and thoughts on his report to us. Thanks, Dean.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I’m an old North Dakota farm boy. I grew up on handshakes, trusting people in what they said, figuring that it was better to believe in people than not, and if one was wronged you’d just chaulk it up to experience and exclude the offender from further social discourse and respect. It has served me well all my life. I’ve taken some chances and have been burned a few times, but for the most part it felt good looking someone in the eye, shaking their hand, and being compensated for your trust or your word.
I attended the second and last class on Middle Eastern culture through community education which in effect, is just a proselytization of Islam. The instructor was a nice enough guy and would answer questions about Islam, but many were a little hazy and, in my opinion, off putting and diversionary. In relation to my opening paragraph, I found myself wanting to believe the instructor, taking him at his word, wanting to believe that maybe this could be a kumbaya world. It amazed me since I went into the class being very skeptical, but the tangerine trees and marmalade skies were working on me. Imagine what it was to the others in the class who were discernibly not as skeptical as I was.
The second class featured an hour and half to two hour video on Muhammad with some time for questions afterwards. I viewed the video critically but it was interesting, if only for the history of the prophet. In reading I have done there is ample agreement that he was a charismatic, brave, and wise leader. The history I would guess is pretty accurate as to his life and times .The history, however, was interspersed with the stories of four American Muslims, from an educated Muslim nurse who wears a head scarf to an American fireman who converted to Islam. All of these stories were warm and fuzzy, and not completely truthful as regards what I know to date about Islam.
The problem is determining where the mind of the American Muslim is at. The instructor said some good things, but on the bottom line, I cannot say that I trust all that he said. The video was a glowing picture of Islam in America, as I imagine any other religion presenting its story would be. The class is presented as a study of Middle Eastern culture, yet it was primarily the study of Islam. I suppose that one could conclude that Middle Eastern culture is Islam since it is what proscribes everything that happens there. The description of the class certainly led one to believe one would experience something different, i.e. “understanding Middle Eastern culture, principles, and some Arabic traditions.”
I noted some things in the video that seem to directly contradict the reading I have done on the Koran. One of the featured Muslims says he respected Islam because it “validates other religions.” That makes it sound like other religions are on a level platform with Islam and it is definitively not so. The concept of shirk is the cardinal sin of Islam, the association of partners with Allah. Christians are therefore the definitive worst of the worst, worshipping Jesus as the Son of God and the only legitimate prophet.
I asked about shirk and it seemed to light a bit of fire under the instructor for some reason, a departure from his normal equivocating. I said that since Christians worship Jesus in this way it means they are guilty of the gravest sin against Islam. He readily asserted this was the case though I don’t think the other students picked up on the severity of his answer.
I had made my first question of the night about the concept of Tuqyah, where it is in the Koran that a Muslim may lie when he considers he is being threatened. It seems a very, very important item and I wanted any answers that came after that to be considered in the light of this concept. The instructor made a point of writing the symbol for it in Arabic on the board, but it was about an inch high and not readable from where I sat. He hadn’t been so economical in his other writings on the board. He said that yes it was allowed for when a Muslim fears for his safety, i.e. if there is a hotbed of anti Muslim sentiment one can claim they are from Mexico to diffuse a situation. It was passed off as being nothing to be concerned about. However, as someone concerned about the growth of Islam in the states, I can see where the concept can easily be stretched to a Muslim’s fear of being constrained in that growth, and lead to all kinds of justified deception, including innocent classes on “Middle Eastern culture.”
I asked about the statement of one of the documented Muslims where it was said that honor and respect were given to all, and then followed by the statement that “we honor and respect our Muslim brothers and sisters.” The question seemed to bother the instructor and surprise him. I don’t think it is something he had noticed in the video for the many times he has probably watched it. My impression is that he felt it might be something that would detract from his message and that it might have to be corrected or prepared for in the slight chance it might be picked out again. The flow was so perfect that I don’t think many will, but to me it was a telling statement.
I stated that the Muslims in America are always requesting quarter behind the discrimination laws we have, but that the Koran seems to be one of the most discriminating documents I have ever read about. As an example I relayed the incident where Muhammad needed a jury of four for a judgment, but could find only three men. He then said bring two women, as that would be the equal of one man. The instructor said that Islam is in many ways more non-discriminatory than other philosophies. He said that money a Muslim woman earns is hers completely by Sharia, and that even if a woman earns more than a man, the husband must pay for the expenses of a household. That was the extent of his argument and did not seem to address the stated inequities of the Koran.
Another interesting reaction was that he stated that our laws are based on Christian principles, implying that therefore they weren’t able to allow for Sharia law and custom, and completely allow for true religious freedom. It is the principle on the one hand that Muslims and secular progressives can readily agree on. It is a fairly good argument for them. On the other hand it is what has allowed them entry and safety in the county. From talking to very liberal people I know that one of their biggest fears is the imposition of what they see as Christian “Sharia” on their lives. They also don’t realize what they have gained from our Christian heritage and the differences between Islam’s concept of religious freedom and ours, but it is a touchy subject for them and one that the right could possibly alleviate by better explaining their positions and their intention of not imposing their principles on others, only wanting to do what they can in their times through the principles of democracy.
I am not positive but about almost sure that in a split second scene in the video, today’s most wanted Al Qaida leader was shown speaking in a mosque. It was so quick, and moved onto the next scene with so much speed, that it was almost one of those moments like marketers use to instill an image in one’s mind about a product. I was going to ask the instructor about it when the video finished but got caught up in other questions and forgot to do so.
One of the people featured was an aide to Congressman Meeks. In one scene the congressman asks the aid about a law concerning Muslims and the aid stated that the bill should be fought with great vigor because it was discriminatory. The image was of a well dressed and honorable man fighting the good fight against discrimination.
The last question of the night was one of the students asking the instructor to explain Sharia. The instructor said it was the law that was followed in most Muslim countries. He did use an example of adultery by a man and a woman and say that the verdict in either case was stoning to death. He said that many Muslims would probably not opt for Sharia, but it sounded again like a purposeful declaration to make modern Muslims sound more agreeable to Western culture.
I told him that my impression of the Koran and Hadith was that it was so contradictory, that what it says in one place is contradicted by another part. The Koran is a disjointed bunch of revelations that follows no order, claimed to be inarguably the word of god because of the beauty and poetry of its word. He asked for an example but I couldn’t respond with sura verses so he passed over this observation. When asked about the seeming prohibition of a Muslim befriending non-believers, he then stated that it indicated this on one part of the book but said in another that you can love others no matter what. It seemed a good indication of what my impression was. It is a place where, because so few in the West know anything about the Koran, they cannot effectively argue, and they can pick out the “good” half without much opposition in debate.
The class, in the end, seems to have been a definite advertising and justification campaign for Islam, if you want to believe that. Is it for sure? I can’t say for certain if it is. There were plenty of things indicating that it was. I would like to believe otherwise but have a hard time believing so. My son, a very liberal individual, wants to believe that Islam can change. He is a good individual, and I know his heart is in the right place. We can argue the points without rancor. I’d like to believe the same, if only for what he has to face in the future, but I cannot in good faith come to that conclusion. There are just too many questionable points to the Koran and to what Muslims actually appear to believe.
I told the instructor the confusion of the Koran and the suspicion of it and the Muslim population by non-believers could be cleared up if Muslims came out of the closet, so to speak. I suspect they do not really want to do that because it would subject them to too many questions, too many inconsistencies in what they say. There are too many mosques and too many individual interpreters of the book, and I suspect that what transgresses in many of these places of worship would not meet our approval. They are far ahead in just being quiet, promoting everything about Islam as positive, and using our laws to promote their agendas. That is all they need to slowly take over this country and others, as has been proven in Europe.
In the end, and at the expense of being accused of being a fear monger and of closed mind, I believe it comes down to being us against them. It is either the West’s concept of religious freedom or Islam’s. From the Koran’s point of view true religious freedom is not really possible since non-believers must be subjugated “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The jizya is a poll tax based on religion. That’s a fairly clear example of Islam’s discrimination against other religions, I would submit. Their concept of religious freedom is not compatible with ours and cannot be unless parts of the Koran can be denounced, and that isn’t going to happen. They use the laws of the West to advance their lot even when they could not believe in those laws themselves should they be the majority. Anyone not a Muslim will ever reach parity with them.
No matter what the instructor and the video portray, Islam is a religion of conquering, and they need no scimitars and swords to accomplish that. Sharia law is something that is a given if they do gain enough in population in communities around the states, and any invocation of it will immediately and irrevocably change the fabric of our Republic. I don’t advocate violence or hate. Muslims are people. I advocate restricting immigration and doing anything possible to reduce the growth of Islam in the country, including the passage of definitive laws that would forever preclude the possibility of Sharia in this country.
Florida “Judge” Orders Use of Islamic Law in Mosque Case
By Newsmax Wires
A Tampa judge is under fire after ruling that he will follow Islamic law in a case against a local mosque that ultimately could decide who controls $2.2 million in state money.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen said he will decide in a lawsuit against a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, ” whether the parties in the litigation properly followed the teachings of the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar,” tampabay.com reports.
“This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law,” the judge wrote in his March 3 ruling.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by several male members of the mosque who say that in 2002, they were unfairly and improperly removed as trustees, the site reported. The center later received $2.2 million from the state after some of its land was used in a road project, and who controls that money is part of the lawsuit.
Tampabay.com quoted the mosque’s attorney saying his client has appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal challenging Nielsen’s use of religion in the case.
“The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings,” attorney Paul Thanasides said. “They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts.”
Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, Florida Republicans, filed legislation to prevent Islamic law, or any foreign legal code, from being applied in state courts, tampabay.com said.