Tit for tat.
Tit for tat.
Tit for tat is going to be the death of us all.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam--more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than for ANY. OTHER. REASON. Will humanity ever see the light? The principle of 'an eye for an eye' is the most imbecilic, juvenile, and ignorant tenet of scripture that I can think of. Even in the few painful experiences I've gone through in my life (which are nothing compared to what's going on in Gaza right now), my natural inclination was retribution, yes, revenge. And according to what's beginning to seem like the majority's view of the Bible's teachings, I would've been right to take that righteous revenge. But LOGICALLY I knew that reacting on emotion would only make whatever situation worse, and would, worse yet, bring pain to my loved ones. Unacceptable.
I'm short on sympathy for the idiots on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians were displaced = wrong. The Jews long before that were displaced by various other faiths/races/regions = wrong. People have died on both sides, and both sides have broken their word. ALL HAVE BEEN WRONGED BY EACH OTHER. Let's not pick and choose reality here.
So if Israel, as a nation, apologized to Palestinians, as a nation, would that fix it? No. Will both sides agree to a bi-national state and sharing the land? No. Are they willing to agree to having two separate states? No. So what's the answer? Oh, well of course it's to BLOW EACH OTHER TO SMITHEREENS! Because we see how well that fixes everything. Imbeciles. Grow up.
It's just lovely to see that the religious/racial intolerance going on in the middle east existed long before black/white enmity in the west. Is this built into our DNA or what? Is this part of humankind's innate ability to destroy itself? The only species bent on its own destruction?
In 2002, 2300 Jews fled France and went to Israel because they felt unsafe. This is going to be so much worse, mark my words.
THOSE WHO TRULY SUFFER AND DIE ARE NOT EVEN MILITANTS. They are civilians. You should ask yourselves why any group of people's ideals are enough to take another group of people's lives. Why? Who really determined that this was righteous? Everything is based on subjective perception, and everyone's perception of scripture and of history is different, depending on your viewpoint. So how can people be made to DIE for something everyone doesn't even AGREE on???
i know this is supposed to be a rant and i shouldn't be picking at individual statements. but i must ask, do you really believe, "more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than for ANY. OTHER. REASON"?
ReplyDeletereally?
this is certainly the message being put out over the media. but is there any truth to it?
you might also find this useful war casualty figures
i would like to reiterate that israelis and palestinians are not fighting over religion. they could live in relative harmony with one another (and with christians) for centuries in palestine before the past 50 years. the roots of this conflict are not to be found in religion.
peace!
Can you still say the conflict is not about religion when bin Laden recently released another audio tape calling for jihad - holy war - against Israel for its Gaza campaign? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of jihad?
ReplyDeletePolitics and religion have been inextricably married from the beginning of our history. In early history there was a political hierarchy. based on religion and royalty. I think it has only come about in modern times that we draw distinctions between the two, but even now in 2009 the separation is not defined enough.
Bear with me, as this is always a working theory, but...so much of the world's conflicts seem to stem from the racism that stemmed from man's original fear of the "other". The Jews were forcibly exiled several times throughout the centuries, and Muslims coexisted with them on a similar level because they were oppressed as well. Persecution so changed the way Jews practiced religion that it decentralized it (diaspora) and perpetuated a victim ideology that would supposedly someday be vindicated by a return to the homeland (Zionism). Zionism is just as wrong (to me it seems another form of racism), but the sympathetics of the world identify with a victim. So in many of the years prior to 1948 Jews and Palestinians did coexist, you're right, but the Palestinians' fear of the realization of the Zionist movement's goal pushed them to begin attacking Jews, civil unrest ensued, and thus the separation in 1948 by the Treaty of Nations. I can't separate the current conflict and their respective and common religious histories. That would require assuming that all governments maintain a separation of religious doctrine and legal statute, but we know that few (if any) do--not even my own--because they associate their construct of "morality" with their religions.
It's late and I'm losing my train of thought...wow. You make me think!
i think you misunderstand my basic assertion. hmm... please read the following essay by king abdullah prior to the 1948 arab-israeli war. it is slightly long but very well worth the read. king hussein's essay.
ReplyDeletei am not stating that religion is playing no role in the present conflict. the palestinians, as many muslims all over the world, are very passionate about their religion, islam. islam guides all aspects of a muslim's individual and social life. islam teaches us ritual manners of worship and it sets down rights and responsibilities that individuals owe to one another. in particular, it provides principles of governance during peace times and rules of engagement during war. everything that a muslim does will be painted in the color of religion.
in deed, religion plays a role in the present conflict. the qur'an states:
(060:008)
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
(060:009)
Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.
jihad means to strive in the way of god. it can refer to a struggling against ones own vain desires, saying a word of truth to a tyrant ruler, or fighting to end oppression. a jihad is not a reason or an excuse to fight the non-believers. rather it is discipline and consciousness that a muslim is required to maintain in all his struggles.
bin laden has no authority, religious and/or political, to call a jihad. however, there are many who sympathize with his call of the injustices being suffered by palestinians.
let me link you to a video that will hopefully bring out this point and give you a better understanding of authority in islam (and what authority bin laden might have)
who speaks for islam
this man probably knows more about bin laden than any body else in the business.
michael scheuer
if you find these videos useful i can recommend others.
sorry, things have been busy lately and I haven't had time to respond! I did, however, watch the video you posted above, "who speaks for islam" and i have to tell you it was fascinating. What do you think about the reformist movement? and the idea that the interpretation of the Qur'an should only be left to the scholarly?
ReplyDeletei generally discredit anybody who uses the label reformist, progressive, etc. in my opinion these are labels designed to gain the sympathies of western audiences. i find their efforts completely insincere.
ReplyDeletei have little to no sympathy for irshad manji. she claims to represent young westernized muslims (supposedly people like me) but i have yet to meet a single peer who identifies with her. i do not doubt that she has a constituency. but i am quite sure it as "large" as the constituency of muslim extremists.
in the talk dalia mogahed points out how "similar" this reform movement is to the attempt at "reform" by the terrorists. both attempt to interpret the qur'an with no respect to context and commentary of muslim scholars over the centuries.
in fact i think this analogy can be taken further. i agree with some of the criticisms manji makes just as i confirm many of the injustices pointed out by the muslim extremists. both of them have tended to blame these as failures of traditional islam. however, their responses to these challenges have been so distasteful that i want nothing to do with either of them.
it appears to me that like the extremists manji likes to read her desires into the text of the qur'an. the former needed to justify violence against civilians so they will distorted the scripture while the wants to see homosexuality approved so goes shopping for a scholar who will deliver on her requirements.
the muslim tradition is rich and diverse. today there are four major schools of islamic jurisprudence in sunni islam (representing ~ 90% of all muslims globally). there were a dozen more in medieval times. these juristic schools are not based on specific rulings. rather they based on interpretational methodology. thus they attempt to eliminate their personal biases (which is perfectly possible) by apply this uniform standard to all issues. over the centuries many of these schools became unpopular and are not extinct because they were either impractical or otherwise resulted in rulings that failed to live up to islamic ideals.
colonial rule, modernity, technology and globalization offer fresh new challenges to interpreting the islamic texts in a manner that is faithful both to letter and spirit of these texts. any movement that finally succeeds in matching these challenges will have to come from within appealing to islamic ideals and addressing past scholarship. (this of course is my opinion).
the qur'an (unlike the bible) has always been available to muslims for their personal interpretation. in islam there is no intermediary priestly class of rabbis and pastors to mediate between man and god. each person is individually accountable to god alone. therefore the acquisition of (necessary) knowledge in islam is considered obligatory. [i.e. it does not suffice as excuse to say that my imam/priest/scholar said so and so]. the qur'an in fact criticizes this tendency amongst jews and christians:
(009:031)
They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far Glorified is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
when muslims fail to read and learn from the qur'an themselves it is their own short coming. however, when making rules that are to be applied to the society (as opposed to individual concerns) a more than basic literacy of scripture is not too much to ask?
i am sorry. i noticed that my last comment was very poorly written. i feel the need to clarify one outstanding point:
ReplyDeleteregarding the islamic schools of jurisprudence. i meant to convey that the schools are not differentiated based on their view on particular questions (e.g. on the question of abortion). in fact, these schools are identified based on the methodology employed in interpreting islamic texts to arrive at their respective conclusions. muslim scholars through the ages have been wary about letting their individual biases influence their interpretation and they have therefore resorted to these methodologies which have been applied across all disciplines.