Senior U.S. general says Muslims worship 'idol'

[johnny]

On the other hand... how many times don't we hear Muslims speak about "the great white satan", or about "infidel imperialistic pigs", and rant about how decadent and rotten our society is ?

I never hear anyone complain about that. So why must all hell break loose if someone says something similar about their world ?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: [QB] Like President Bush said: terrorists have hijacked a religion.

You're kidding me right? You're quoting George Bush as an expert on a foreign culture????

A truer statement would be "Islam has hijacked terrorism". The people were Muslims before they were terrorists. Terrorism is a means, not an end. Islam provides the ends, terrorism the means. Unless you're proposing that there is a generalised personality type that is predisposed towards terrorism throughout history. A global organisation that decided to use Islam to achieve it's ends.

Hardly.

Certain extremist Christians are at odds with the American people, American values, American attitudes, and American religious freedom but doesn't mean they all are. Same logic applies to Islam.

Interesting, except and extremist fundamentalist Christian would be someone who lives not unlike say Ghandi or some other extreme Pacifistic, possession avoiding person. Following in the path of Jesus to the extreme would involve dying for other people. A Muslim fundamentalist following in the exact path of Mohammad would raze cities and kill women and children.

The difference is in the ideology.

Casting Muslims with a broad brush and painting Islam on the whole as at "war" with America is nothing more than a sensational generalization. There is no "what then".

I asked a hypothetical question. What would you do if Islam WAS at war with America? What then? There is no brush stroke. It's a hypothetical.

Of course if extremists like this General use there power to wage holy war and demonize the "whole" of Islam for some of it's self- proclaimed "parts" then we may very well have a war with Islam. For Islam would have no choice but to defend itself from perceived "Christian agression".

Again, I said "at war with America" not "at war with Christianity."

Islam is of course "At war with Christianity" but the battlefield is in the hearts and minds of humans, not cities or armies. If a thing conflicts with a thing, it is at war. Islam and Christianity cannot both reside in the same place - a persons mind - so they are at war with each other.

I however, asked what would you do if Islam was at war with AMERICA. If it's values, ideal, aims and objectives directly coaligned with the destruction of your country.

What would you do then?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Like President Bush said: terrorists have hijacked a religion.

You're kidding me right? You're quoting George Bush as an expert on a foreign culture????

[/QUOTE]I'm full of suprises sometimes, aren't I? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Following in the path of Jesus to the extreme would involve dying for other people. A Muslim fundamentalist following in the exact path of Mohammad would raze cities and kill women and children.

You are showing an embarrassing level of ignorance of the life of Mohammad - his life was not unlike that of Jesus - and Islamic belief, as you probably do not know, reveres Jesus as fellow prohphet of the *same* god.

Of course, as a non-muslim, you do not need to know about Mohammad or Islam - but you owe it to yourself (if only to not look foolish in front of your peers) to do at least a little reading on the subject before you openly criticise islamic belief.

[ 10-17-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Chewbacca]

Apology and Clarification from the General.

Seems thoughtful and sincere enough. He may not be so much an extremist as I had previously considered. Though a decent PR machine can make anyone sound good and he didn't clarify all of his extreme statements, so I shall remain a bit skeptical.

Article

WASHINGTON (AP) - A top Pentagon general apologized Friday to those offended by his statements casting the war on terrorism in religious terms. In a statement, Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin said he never meant to offend Muslims. ``I am not anti-Islam or any other religion,'' Boykin said. ``I support the free exercise of all religions. For those who have been offended by my statements, I offer a sincere apology.'' Pentagon officials released Boykin's statement late Friday after spending hours deliberating how to calm the storm of criticism surrounding Boykin's comments. The general's statements came in speeches - some made in uniform - at evangelical Christian churches. In several speeches, Boykin said the real enemy was not Osama bin Laden but Satan. ``I have frequently stated that I do not see this current conflict as a war between Islam and Christianity,'' Boykin said. ``I have asked American Christian audiences to realize that even though they cannot be in Iraq or Afghanistan, they can be part of this war by praying for America and its leaders.'' A decorated veteran of foreign campaigns, the three-star general said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia: ``I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.'' After the man was captured, Boykin said he told the man, ``You underestimated our God.'' Boykin's statement said that comment was misinterpreted. ``My comments to Osman Otto in Mogadishu were not referencing his worship of Allah but his worship of money and power; idolatry,'' Boykin said. ``He was a corrupt man, not a follower of Islam.'' Critics have said Boykin's remarks could undermine a more than two-year Bush administration effort to promote good relations with Muslims in America, as well as play into the hands of those who have fanned anti-Americanism abroad by casting the counterterror war as an attack on Islam. Asked about the general's church comments, Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told reporters Friday: ``If true, outrageous. I thought they were insensitive. I thought they were unbecoming of a senior military official, and certainly unbecoming of a senior government official.'' Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, has told Pentagon officials that he will curtail his speechmaking, officials said. ``I am neither a zealot nor an extremist,'' the general said in the statement. ``Only a soldier who has an abiding faith.'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he had not seen Boykin's comments, but he praised the three-star general as ``an officer that has an outstanding record in the United States armed forces.'' Despite repeated questions at a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld declined to condemn Boykin's statements or to say whether he would take any action. A Muslim rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, had called for Boykin to be reassigned from his job, which includes evaluating and providing resources for the intelligence needs of military commanders. Other religious freedom advocacy groups made similar statements. ``A man who sees the conduct of U.S. foreign policy as some sort of Christian religious crusade should not be making policy,'' said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group. The Bush administration has gone to some lengths to court Muslim organizations since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks set off the U.S. war on terror. Muslim leaders have been invited to the White House, and President Bush declared late last year that Islam is a peaceful religion, seeking to distance himself from remarks by conservative Christian leaders Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Boykin's statement echoed the president's past comments. ``I do believe that radical extremists have tried to use Islam as a cause for attacks on America,'' Boykin said. ``As I have stated before, they are not true followers of Islam. In my view they are simply terrorists, much like the so-called 'Christians' of the white supremacy groups.''

[ 10-17-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Following in the path of Jesus to the extreme would involve dying for other people. A Muslim fundamentalist following in the exact path of Mohammad would raze cities and kill women and children.

You are showing an embarrassing level of ignorance of the life of Mohammad - his life was not unlike that of Jesus - and Islamic belief, as you probably do not know, reveres Jesus as fellow prohphet of the *same* god.

Of course, as a non-muslim, you do not need to know about Mohammad or Islam - but you owe it to yourself (if only to not look foolish in front of your peers) to do at least a little reading on the subject before you openly criticise islamic belief. [/QUOTE]Actually I have read much of the Qu'ran, many Muhammadian Hadiths and am currently reading a book called "The Islamic Jesus" which explores all the references to Jesus contained in the Qu'ran and Hadiths of various authorship, as well as other oral and literary traditions - collectively informally known as "The Muslim Gospel".

I assure you as a Christian I have made it my business to thoroughly investigate as many alternate paths as possible given my time on this earth, to be assured that the path I am on is the most correct given human fallibility.

Consequently I am very well versed in Muhammads life and story, his marriage, his editting of the Qu'ran after recitation, his initial doubts about the source of his first visions, the removed "satanic verses" advocating polytheism, and am well versed with the explicit instructions contained in both the Qu'ran and his Hadiths regarding war, violence, living amongst Jews and Christians - the "people of the book".

Before you go jumping to conclusions about my own research, simply because it contradicts your own preconceptions, why not kindly ask me what I have read before you denigrate my position.

As it is, I'll ask you.

Have you read the Qu'ran? Do you, as I do, even own a copy of the Qu'ran?
What Hadiths have you read?

The simple fact that you mention that Muhammad revered Jesus as a fellow prophet of the same God, shows your OWN level of ignorance of the difference between not only Christianity and Islam, but also the perceptions Islam has of Christianity,

Are you aware of the Surahs in the Qu'ran where Isa (Jesus) answers Allah about the Christians belief in his deity for example?

The difference between Christianity and every other world religion, is that we believe Yeshua was God on this earth. Fully God, fully human.

Islam declares Jesus is not God, and even decrys Jesus crucifixion. Some Muslim schools of thought hold that Jesus never died at all! But that Judas was substituted for him on the cross.

Many contradictions abound.

In any case the most glaring being that Jesus told his disciples to put down their swords when he was being arrested. He willingly went to die for other people. Muhammad on the other hand waged ruthless and bloody wars and died an old man uncertain of what Allah would do with him.

Which leads to the single biggest problem in Islam. If you lead a life imitating the Islamic exemplar, Muhammad, you HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION. As not even Muhammad had such assurance.

However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War.

Protest all you want, but I have read the verses many times, and posted them on Ironworks before, and will do so again if requested.

Or you could simply do your own research.

A Christian has assurance of salvation through accepting the atoning blood of Jesus. A Muslim must shed their own blood as a Martyr to have assurance of salvation. Very big difference.

As to "the same God", that is a matter of contention. Assuredly Allah means "God" in Arabic, but the attributes of Allah differ vastly from the Triune God of Christianity. In Christianity, you see Jesus, you see God. Jesus is God. He said to his disciples, that because they knew him, they knew God.

Allah on the other hand, is not Triune, is far more vengeful and destructive, doesn't offer forgiveness and grace through his death.

So I repeat.

A Christian fundamentalist taking his religion to a legalistic extreme would resemble Ghandi, who it could be argued has most closely followed in the steps of Jesus in recent times. His life is an interesting study in a person trying to follow Jesus without knowing him as the living God and possessing the indwelling Holy Spirit, whereas as Christians we believe Jesus is IN us, enabling relationship with God, (not perfection).

A muslim fundamentalist, is as we observe, a Wahabist terrorist perhaps. Bear in mind, Wahabist Islam (a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam) has commited more atrocities against fellow muslims than any other faith. Saudi Arabia and the Taliban are Wahabist btw.

The term "Christian aggression" is an oxymoron. I would argue that a Christian that goes to war is RECONCILING his beliefs, in the same way that a Muslim who does NOT go to war is RECONCILING his beliefs.

The Qu'ran and Hadiths are quite clear in it's exaltation of those that go to war against the infidel, over and above those that stay at home or do business with them. Quite clear. The New Testament is quite clear that violence, even retalliation previously and currently justified under Jewish law, is completely unacceptable if taking a legalistic viewpoint.

So.... I am not making a statement in ignorance, and as I said, quite happy to either post the respective verses and their context as proof.

Adios

Yorick.

[ 10-18-2003, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Before you go jumping to conclusions about my own research, simply because it contradicts your own preconceptions, why not kindly ask me what I have read before you denigrate my position.

Yorick, I didn't *need* to ask you what you had read to denigrate your position. You had made a statement that erred to such a degree that no further questions were neccessary - and you have repeated that error once more in your response: "However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War"

Actually, the Qu'ran declares assurance of salvation of those muslims martyred or killed while on a Jihad - not on a holy war.
Jihad simply means 'to strive' - and it has many facets. The man who wanders into the desert by himself to ponder the meaning of 'God's word' is on a Jihad. The one who gives all of his money to the poor and struggles to help them is also on a Jihad. The woman who jumps into a river to save the life of a child is on a Jihad. The Iranian lawyer who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for peace is on a personal Jihad too. Tareq Ayyoub the Al Jazeera correspondant who was killed covering the Anglo-Iraq war and who had been beaten, tortured and detained in several middle-eastern states for reporting the truth about those regimes was also on a Jihad.

If you have misconstrued this basic term, then your reading has been for naught - because it is the most basic ideal of Islam, from which all of the philosophy springs.

[ 10-18-2003, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by johnny: On the other hand... how many times don't we hear Muslims speak about "the great white satan", or about "infidel imperialistic pigs", and rant about how decadent and rotten our society is ? I never hear anyone complain about that. So why must all hell break loose if someone says something similar about their world ?

We do the same johnny. How many times have you heard that the Arab nations are uncivilized etc.? Heck we even do it to Asia as well.

Interesting post Yorick, the last one. I mean that. Of course that's your interpretation, one of I don't know how many. And that's also the problem. One verse can be interpreted as a peaceful message by one wheras another man finds it to be a message of holy war. But could you point out the verse that says "Islam provides the ends, terrorism the means" please? And don't bring up martyrism since that is definitely not an answer...

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I've been giving this thread a lot of thought over the last couple of days, especially the original comments made by the general. And after careful consideration, I still don't see anything inherently wrong with what he said and in the context which it was said. Let's look at some of the key issues.

He said that the Islam god is an idol. He has since gone on to clarify his meaning in this statement, but taken at face value, it is still consistent with his Christian beliefs. Christianity holds that there is one - and only one - God. If Allah is different than God, that means that (according to Christian faith) he is a false god - or idol. You may or may not agree with that concept, but I have had to endure the same statements being made about my God on this very forum numerous times. That doesn't mean there is any inherently malicious intent in the statement itself....it is simply a statement of ones beliefs.

The general said he knew his God was more powerful than his enemies god. Again, from a Christian perspective, this is just a true reflection of his beliefs. Christians do believe that only one Omnipotent Being exists. By definition, all other gods would be weaker than God.

The general also said the "true enemy" he was facing in this confict was Satan. This is by far the truest statement and reflection of his Christian beliefs. In saying that the enemy is Satan, he is NOT implying that the Islamic faith worships Satan. Rather, he is correctly stating that Satan has managed to convince a handful of fanatics to commit unspeakable atrocities in the NAME of the Islamic faith. By doing this, he has caused anger and resentment towards those of the Islamic faith here, and given atheists and other non-beleivers more "proof" that ALL religions are inherently "bad". Satan doesn't like religious beliefs of any kind, and anything he can do to smear religion in general is considered a victory in his eyes.

Finally, for those who say the general should be reassigned from such a "sensitive and important policy making position" due to his beliefs...that's all well and good. Provided you are willing to call for the same reassignment of any top aides on the Muslim side who may personally believe that America IS the "Great Satan". After all, we wouldn't want anyone with extreme beliefs to be in a decision-making or policy-influencing position and I'm certain we could agree that this should apply to both sides of the equation equally.

I'm already seeing arguments about people "misinterpreting" or "misunderstanding" the Muslims and their religion. However, I see just as much misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Christian religion by these same members. Just because the general may have these personal beliefs does NOT mean he is going to call for a "holy war" based on these beliefs. President Bush holds the same fundamentalist beliefs as the general, yet he was the first to say that this was NOT a war on Muslims and that Americans should NOT hold Muslims in general responsible for the acts of a few. I also hold the same beliefs of the general, but I also realize that the terrorist acts of 9/11 are no more representative of the Muslim faith than the KKK is of the Christian faith, even though both groups claim these faith systems as the guiding force behind their actions.

BTW, I think it shows a lot about the generals Christian character that he felt the need to issue an apology and offer clarification of the statements he made. Remember, the only real argument his opponents have is that he was wearing his uniform when he made some of these statements, even though the statements were made in a perfectly acceptable forum. If the general truly were the "zealot" many are trying to paint him as, he would have felt no need to offer an apology or clarification of his comments.

[ 10-18-2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Before you go jumping to conclusions about my own research, simply because it contradicts your own preconceptions, why not kindly ask me what I have read before you denigrate my position.

Yorick, I didn't *need* to ask you what you had read to denigrate your position. You had made a statement that erred to such a degree that no further questions were neccessary - and you have repeated that error once more in your response: "However, the Qu'ran quite clearly and succinctly declares assurance of salvation for those muslims martyred, those killed in Holy War"

Actually, the Qu'ran declares assurance of salvation of those muslims martyred or killed while on a Jihad - not on a holy war.
Jihad simply means 'to strive' - and it has many facets. The man who wanders into the desert by himself to ponder the meaning of 'God's word' is on a Jihad. The one who gives all of his money to the poor and struggles to help them is also on a Jihad. The woman who jumps into a river to save the life of a child is on a Jihad. The Iranian lawyer who was recently awarded the Nobel Prize for peace is on a personal Jihad too. Tareq Ayyoub the Al Jazeera correspondant who was killed covering the Anglo-Iraq war and who had been beaten, tortured and detained in several middle-eastern states for reporting the truth about those regimes was also on a Jihad.

If you have misconstrued this basic term, then your reading has been for naught - because it is the most basic ideal of Islam, from which all of the philosophy springs. [/QUOTE]Again you are both incorrect, and quick to display a willingness to swallow politically correct propaganda.

The Hadiths and Qu'ran make clear examples of WARRIORS falling in battle. Distinction is made between those that stay at home, and those that take up arms. It is not a simple as reconciling the word "Jihad", for examples, stories are offered that clarify the intent. Additionally, the word itself, translated as struggle or strive IMPLIES "al-Qitaa" the physical fight.

Your interpretation of "Jihad" is precisely what I'm saying about a peaceful Muslim RECONCILING the more violent aspects of Islam. Good for them. I'm glad they do. Wish more would.

It doesn't change the reality of what they do.

I once dated a Muslim girl who had reconciled many aspects. I do as I said, know what I'm talking about, and if you cared to purschase a copy of the Qu'ran and read it as I have done, you may find you see things as I've described.

Certainly when Saddam Hussein calls for a Jihad against the West, Islam knows what he means. When the wife of a Hamas terrorist is exultant now that her husband or son is a Martyr, exultant that he is in paradise, it's not to hard to see the correllation with the teachings in the Qu'ran.

A persons perception is their reality. It solves nothing to look at suicide terrorists and call them "madmen" "insane" or whatever. What they do is perfectly logical and understandable given their worldview.

Were my world shit, devoid of money, pleasure or food, lived in constant fear and oppression, I would possibly look at an assurance of an eternity in paradise as a viable option too.

It is pointless to deride my interpretation, when it co-aligns with the interpretation of the vast majority of Islamics, especially the terrorists - whose mindset is the one I am seeking to understand. Living in New York during 9/11 gave me a sense of urgency in seeking why the willingness to die for a cause - an action of incredible power - was used to destroy instead of build.

Western Muslims are already reconciling the commands not to be doing business with us. It is no wonder they have reconciled Jihad.

As I said, good for them.

I sincerly recommend you read the Qu'ran for yourself, and develop your own understanding before continuing this discussion. Regurgitating politically correct propaganda does nothing for your argument, and clearly inhibits your ability to read mine with any degree of open mindedness.

Until such a time, there is not much more I have to say on the subject.


-----------------
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 558:
Narrated Anas:

Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr while he was young. His mother came to the Prophet saying, "O Allah's Apostle! You know the relation of Haritha to me (how fond of him I was); so, if he is in Paradise, I will remain patient and wish for Allah's reward, but if he is not there, then you will see what I will do." The Prophet replied, "May Allah be merciful upon you! Have you gone mad? (Do you think) it is one Paradise? There are many Paradises and he is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al-Firdaus."


Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out."


Surah 009:111
God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.


Surah 3:169-71
"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)."


Volume 9, Book 90, Number 333:
Narrated Al-A'rai:

Abu Huraira said, Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand my life is, I would love to fight in Allah's Cause and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred, and then resurrected (come to life) and then get martyred and then resurrected (come to life)." Abu Huraira used to repeat those words three times and I testify to it with Allah's Oath.


Volume 4, Book 53, Number 412:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Allah's Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration now, but there is Jihad (i.e.. holy battle) and good intentions. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once"
Allah's Apostle also said, on the day of the conquest of Mecca, "Allah has made this town a sanctuary since the day He created the Heavens and the Earth. So, it is a sanctuary by Allah's Decree till the Day of Resurrection. Fighting in it was not legal for anyone before me, and it was made legal for me only for an hour by daytime. So, it (i.e. Mecca) is a sanctuary by Allah's Decree till the Day of Resurrection. Its thorny bushes should not be cut, and its game should not be chased, its fallen property (i.e. Luqata) should not be picked up except by one who will announce it publicly; and its grass should not be uprooted," On that Al-'Abbas said, "O Allah's Apostle! Except the Idhkhir, because it is used by the goldsmiths and by the people for their houses." On that the Prophet said, "Except the Idhkhir."


***NB: "Holy Battle" is the Narrator and translators definition, not mine. I have not added a word. - Yorick ***

[ 10-18-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]