Now comes Victoria News with a one sided approach to inter-cultural dialog. Google alerted me to the existence of their editorial from which I have quoted a few excerpts out of context with my comments.
This arises in context of Lorenzo Bouchard's campaign to ban Islam from Canada. He allegedly posted demands for an Islam ban on bulletin boards at a local university. Subsequently, Muslim students claimed to be in fear for their physical safety because of those postings.
Fears about safety have been churned up in the Muslim student community at the University of Victoria recently
Is there any rational basis for those 'fears", or are they the product of paranoia or political expediency? Does Lorenzo Bouchard have a proven history of making or carrying out threats of physical violence? Was there any threatening language in those posters? While those questions remain unanswered, I will presume that the claims of "fears" are the product of political expediency.
There are violent passages in virtually all sacred religious texts, including some that target specific groups and some simply declaring the omnipotence of the god figure.
I am only familiar with Christian & Islamic scripture. Are Buddhists & Hindus engaging in Jihad? Did they perpetrate the attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid or New York? Then why bring up other scriptures?
The fact is that Islam's scripture contains open ended, outcome oriented Jihad imperatives without chronological or geographic limits. I present the text of those ayat as translated by Hilali & Khan, with links to parallel translations and to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. [Emphasis added.]
Those are fight...until loops with compound terminal conditions; without time limits. They are not anachronisms. Their revelator prophesied that Jihad would continue until the last day.
The entire world must be conquered, no matter how long it takes, and Muslims will be cursed if they abandon their duty, as made clear in this hadith.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
Can you connect the dots?
We must be careful as a society not to encourage the ignorance-based idea that everyone who adheres to a particular faith will interpret those passages the same way.
Muslims are not empowered to interpret their scripture, which includes two types of verses: clear and unclear. The clear verses contain Allah's commands, including those cited above, and his rules, etc. which are to be believed in and implemented. The clear verses do not require interpretation. The meaning of the clear verses has been fixed by scholars, based upon Moe's sunnah. The unclear verses have meanings known only to Allah, and are to be believed but not implemented. To fully comprehend this, you need to read 3:7 and its tafsir.
Moe demonstrated the meaning of 8:39 & 9:29 by waging numerous wars, as reported in his sunnah. Follow the links to the hadith cited above and use the links in the left side bar to go up to the next few levels and read the several books of Jihad in the four collections at USC. While Ibn Kathir goes into detail about the orders to fight, other exegetes find them so obvious that no elaboration is required. Examine these examples; note how Maududi goes into great detail about Jizya, but not the order to fight.
The ban Islam campaign also calls for the destruction of the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book. On some levels, that’s like saying we should ban other religions because their holy texts refer to non-believers as heathens who should be destroyed.
Please substantiate this assertion. Lorenzo's petitions* call for Islam to be banned, they do not mention destroying the Qur'an. They also explicitly state the grounds on which Islam should be outlawed.
To: Prime Minister of Canada (Stephen Harper)
IN THE INTEREST OF HUMAN VALUES AND UNIVERSAL LOVE, WE DIRECT THIS PETITION TO OUR PRIME MINISTER,THE HONORABLE STEPHEN HARPER AND ALL MEMBERS OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENT.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CANADIAN PETITIONERS, REQUEST A BAN ON THE ORGANIZATION CALLED ISLAM. WE REQUEST THIS BAN DUE TO THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF IT'S FOUNDER, MOHAMMED AND THE KORAN'S DOCTRINES WHICH LEGITIMIZES PAEDOPHILIA, ASSASSINATIONS, THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN BY SUPPRESSING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UTILIZATION OF TERROR AS A WEAPON OF INTIMIDATION AND CONTROL.
But in this day and age, we must be vigilant when individuals or groups with a certain viewpoint threaten – either implicitly or directly – the well-being of others who are minding their own business.
It appears to this reader that your editorial is casting innuendo against Lorenzo Bouchard, accusing him of threatening Muslims. If you have evidence of any threat, why don't you publish it?
The business of Islam; of Muslims is Jihad. Must we be vigilant against those who explicitly threaten our well being? It appears that you have no clue concerning the application of your own expression. I will therefore cite Islamic law, which requires a minimum of one military attack against Dar al-Harb in every year. The following quotes are from Umdat as-Salik. [Book O, Chapter 9.]
O9.1 ...As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year....
O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
When Muslims carry out demonstrations, they frequently display signs urging our decapitation and proclaiming that Islam will conquer and dominate us. What do you say about those threats?