Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Islam: peace or wrath?

Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole western world is giving Islam a giant pass when it comes to holding this religion accountable to what it teaches?

Here's the most recent example: a Muslim man, in America, cut off his wife's head after she asked for a divorce. Ironically, this happens to be the very man who founded a TV station devoted to countering the public perception that Islam encourages violence. Read the story here.

Islam experts claim this has the markings of an honor killing, which is a right of a Muslim man to kill a female relative, (without question according to Sharia Law) if she has done something to dishonor the family name. A divorce request from a wife falls into that category.

This comes after the headlines about the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who made the anti-Islamic video called "Fitna" - a fifteen-minute film that juxtaposes Islamic texts calling for killing, along with scenes from 9/11 and other violent terrorist acts. This guy is being attacked for hate speech. What did he do? He put together a video with scenes of Imams (Islamic teachers) preaching hate and violence against westerners, and added texts from the Quran (the Islamic religious book) that commands the killing of non-Muslims. The video is almost entirely made up of Islamic teaching and texts, and Wilders is attacked for hate speech against Muslims.

Am I missing something here? Didn't Wilders just connect the dots? The only hate speech in the video is from Islamic teachers and the Quran calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims. There wasn't even any stretching - he packaged certain Islamic ideas all together in one spot. Here's just one article about it.


Don't worry though. There were plenty of Muslims who made a move to prove him wrong by threatening to kill him. He now requires 24-hour security because of all the death threats he's been getting.

There are some other very disturbing teachings of Islam that are hidden away and not discussed by Muslims or the media. Things such as vigilante justice, polygamy, views on rape, and the goal for global dominance, just to name a few. To get an idea of the worldview of Islam I suggest reading Nonie Darwish's book Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. The author is a former Muslim who spent the first thirty years of her life in Egypt, under Islamic Law.

Another disturbing view is how Islam divides the world. To Islam, there is only two kinds of places in the world. The first is called The House of Islam. This is all the countries that live under Islamic rule and law, called Sharia. The rest of the world is called The House of War. In other words, any country or place that isn't ruled by an Islamic government, is considered a place of siege. You can read more on this in Bernard Lewis' objective book called The Crisis of Islam. (Lewis is a renowned professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University.)

Now, having said all this, I know what some people may be saying: "There has been much bloodshed in the name of Christ as well. All people are evil and prone to use a religious system as justification of violence." I agree. Horrible things have been done in the name of Christendom. Christ never would have consented to it. People are evil and are capable of gross violence for the sake of advancing their own enterprises.

But here's the difference: When people who profess to be Christian commit violence and crime of this type it goes against what their Bible teaches them. But what do you do with a religion that encourages violence? When a Muslim abuses his wife and commits violence against innocent "infidels," his religious texts claim there is reward for the Muslim. He is in direct line with what his teachings call for. He may be violent, but he is no hypocrite.

Even from the very beginning Mohammad set an example for violence. He began his movement by killing nearly 800 Jews in Medina for not converting to his new religion. He and his followers made their living from raiding caravans in the desert. Muslims are quick to point out that he took Mecca peacefully, but that was only because he was marching there with an army intent on attacking. To avoid bloodshed, Meccan authorities surrendered to him.

Compare this with Jesus' life and teachings and the contrast is startling: Jesus condemned violence, taught turning the other cheek, encouraged to give Caesar his taxes, encouraged love and self-sacrifice and eventually died a cruel death for his people.

Mohammad had thirteen wives (his favorite whom he married when she was only nine years old) and fought many battles, taking women and children as booty. Yes, there are people in the Bible who did the same thing, but (a) it was never encouraged, only recorded and (b) Jesus is our example, not anyone else.

The point I'm getting at is, it is the history and texts of Islam that present a problem, and not the Muslims in themselves. People need to understand that something must be done about the teachings of Islam that incite hatred and violence - and until something changes within the core teaching, Muslims will be able to commit violence and claim that it was only in harmony with their worldview.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Inconsistency in Abortion-Rights Supporters

The story of the botched abortion in Tampa, Fla., is one example of the depravity and desensitization of our society. But it's also a unique example of senseless inconsistency in the reaction of those who support abortion rights.

In summary, a woman nearly six months pregnant arrived at an abortion clinic for for an abortion. Upon arrival, she went into labor and delivered a live baby. One of the clinic’s owners cut the umbilical cord of the baby without clamping it, allowing the baby to bleed out, and then put the child in a biohazard bag and threw it in the dumpster. Full article here.

Now, the depravity and desensitization in this act is obvious to anyone with respect for human life. I won’t waste any time arguing against those who disagree. It’s a waste of good time and rhetoric on callous minds. Those who see no issue with this at least remain consistent with their conviction to Pro Choice.

However, may I point out some obvious inconsistencies of people supporting abortion who condemned this act? Yes – in this article it was reported that even those who support abortion rights were crying out against this act, calling it “disturbing”.

I will say this: No one supporting abortion rights are in a position to cry out against this atrocity. They must resist their (God-given) impulse to be disgusted, or reevaluate their position. Lets break this down with logic.

In the United States a person can legally abort a baby up to 24 weeks after conception for almost any reason under the protection of privacy laws. Allow me to ask the obvious question: what is the difference between killing a fetus while its inside the womb, and killing it at the same age outside of the womb? That is the main difference in question here! The only reason Pro Choicers have an issue with this case is several inches of distance in physical space from the mother’s womb. What has changed? Older babies have been killed and no one raises any questions because it was done while in the womb.

The story explicitly states that it’s not uncommon for babies born at 23 weeks to survive. It makes no logical sense, if a person supports abortion, to have any ethical problems with what happened in that clinic. If the fourteenth amendment won’t grant a 23-week-old fetus protection rights while in the womb, why should it grant it protection when it has even less of a chance of survival when its born prematurely?

This only exposes the stupidity of the court-ruled decision not to protect the rights of the unborn in Roe vs. Wade. And, I might add, the emotional response as a result of this is just one clue why it makes no sense. The only real difference is visual. People are less emotionally attached to something they cannot see. But once we can see it with our own eyes, emotions inevitably engage. People are visual.

(I might also add the reason this woman got an abortion wasn’t because she was raped, or her life was at risk, or because she had been using drugs. The article states, “She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child …”)

My wife is now pregnant. We went in for our first ultra sound at nine weeks and by that time our baby had a beating hear, a complete head with arms and legs and other body organs. At nine weeks she moved around in the womb and reacted to the prodding of the tool used to photograph it. This here is an image at nine weeks:



This is an image at thirteen weeks, where she now is developing her ability to hear:












Here’s my conclusion. Abortion-rights supporters seem to be caught up in the emotions of human rights. They see a woman and conclude that woman has certain rights over her own body, to do with it as she pleases. But when they see a 23-week fetus outside of that woman’s body, they also are moved emotionally by what they see and conclude that fetus suddenly has rights. But as long as the womb conceals the form of a human, no emotion will engage to protect the rights of that human. In other words, it seems people are building their worldviews on the fluid foundations of their feelings. And when feelings shift and move (as they always do) contradictory positions result. One reason most Christians are Pro Life is because Christians agree they don’t belong to themselves, but to God. We have been ransomed by him and belong to ourselves no more. Therefore, the fetus is God’s fetus, and not the mothers, and she has no right to terminate that life, no matter how young.

If I may borrow the words of C. S. Lewis, “I am only trying to put the whole problem the right way round, to make it clear that the value given to the testimony of any feeling must depend on our whole philosophy, not our whole philosophy on a feeling” (p. 201).

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. “Religion: Reality or Substitute” in The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis. New York: Inspirational Press. 198-202.