The American Muslim Movement.

It's called the First Amendment. You pretty much have the right to say anything, no matter how stupid.
It's the same right that allows people like yourself to spew your anti-American bile and not end up in a Gulag (ala the old Soviet Union) or fed into a shredder (ala Saddam and company).

Thats what the first Amendment is FOR hobit, to protect the right of BOTH of us to say what we want or need to say. Free speech means that you or I have the ability to say whatever stupid thing comes into our heads, just as the other is free to walk away and not listen if they don't like the message.

Your inference that the right is preventing the passage of such a restriction on free speech and the First Amendment is a revealing look at the true nature of the lefts intentions; namely, restriction of any speech that they deem 'offensive' or 'hurtful'. Thats just sad.

I am trying to bring a mix of articles. Some are general information, some may be critical or investigatory.

Feel free to bring anything you think it worthwhile to a deeper understanding of the American Muslim Movement--negative or positive.

The one thing that I find so interesting about this whole thread is that, like many time previous on boards, TV and print, people seem to be making numerous references to 'True Islam'.

After things like terrorist bombings, they say: 'True Islam' doesn't condone such things.

After the bodies of some civilian workers were burned, hung and mutilated, they say: Such things are considered improper by 'True Islam'

When a suicide bomber blows himself up along with several innocents they say: Suicide is against the tenants of 'True Islam' and 'True Islam' is against the killing of innocents.

When Imams are teaching/preaching in their schools hate against any who are not Islamic, they say: 'True Islam' doesn't support hate, it is a religion of peace.

When intfada and jihad are encouraged against any non Muslims, they say: Thats not what 'True Islam' is, 'True Islam' is being misunderstood.


The problem as I see it is, much like the old days of claiming that if 'True Communism' were ever achieved it would be wonderful, yet no one could seem to locate anyplace where 'True Communism' worked or could even show and example, I feel that 'True Islam' is also a fleeting myth that people hold up as an example of what COULD be if people just followed the tenants of 'True Islam'.

The problem is, no one in the West has ever seen it! The only part of Islam that we get to see is the dark examples of the people who claim to follow it. Judging Islam by the actions of the Al'Q or by the PA or any of the religion based terror organizations is like judging Christianity by only observing the actions of the Ku Klux Klan.

I think more of the people who not only claim, but who actually FOLLOW 'True Islam' need to step to the for and denounce those who sully the name of their religion by their actions.

Just my 2 cents (pre tax)

I was glad to see a major Islamic group condemn the beheading. I was very angry at the length of their silence after 911.

I, too, believe the authentic Islamic groups should speak out when people who claim to be Muslims murder or blow up people IN THE NAME OF ALLAH OR THEIR RELIGION.

I remember feeling dirty by association when 'Christians' burned down abortion clinics, made a mockery of Matthew Sheppard's funeral, or agreed with shooting abortion doctors. I was ashamed, even though I hadn't done anything.

I wish the mainstream Islamic American groups would raise their visibility.

I feel the same way about the mainstream Islamic groups Sofia

I obviously don't read American dailies, but I can tell you that there is coverage in Canadian media of mainstream Islamic groups in Canada who are speaking out against what happened under Saddam, who are clearly not in support of Usama, etc. They are active, and they are heard. They were a bit nervous, understandably I think, after 9-11, but they are speaking out again. It's in the paper, it's on the radio. We're hearing their voices.

About 20 years ago I used to work with a group of Black Islamic guys - damn scary and I didn't know jack about that stuff. And they weren't criminals or convicted (at UPS you had to have a clean record).

Seems to me there are two alternatives

kill them
learn to live together

sorry 3 alternatives

they kill you
you kill them
we learn to live

Before I go off killing someone, or lay my neck on a slab for them, I prefer to know a bit about them, if you don't object. And, perhaps even if you do.

Yes, me too. My response was going to include "Fox", "mainstream", and several somewhat colorful words, if I remember correctly, before I decided I was too annoyed to post just then.

Learning is good.

Judicious observation is good, too.

Colin was prominent on the tube yesterday, asking why mainstream Islam hadn't condemned Berg's murder.

It is immeasurably important that they do. The silence speaks to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

I have great affection for the people struggling for a decent life, no matter what, who or how they worship--but not when they espouse murder. The Muslims who celebrate events like 911, Berg's murder, the murder of contractors aren't an inconsequential number. The silence of their religious leaders condones the activity--and increases it.

Be assured, I respect the voices I hear--but they are too few, and too hesitant. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I dunno. Call them members of The Nation of Islam. Or, for lack of a more apt description, black Muslims.

Although members of the Nation may call themselves Muslims, even they recognize that their religion is separate from the one practiced in the Middle East.

The stone soup of religions your making is almost as absurd as lumping Native Americans in the same group as Indians, because, hey, they both call themselves Indians.

Or, perhaps when discussing the tragedy at Waco Texas, we should refer to David Koresh's cult as "the American Christian Movement," 'cause, you know, they call themselves Christians.

In fact, David Koresh and the Branch Dividians cult have a far stronger connection to Christianity than the Nation of Islam has to the Islamic religion.



No, I am not. And I'd go as far as to say that anybody who thinks I am is seriously uninformed.



No.

The belief system of the Nation of Islam is a curious mix. On the one hand, Louis Farrakhan claims to preserve the teachings of "the Honorable Elijah Muhammad." In many ways, Minister Farrakhan fulfills this promise by distributing tapes and books of the late Elijah Muhammad (1897-1975). Yet over the past decade, as Louis Farrakhan has enjoyed closer contact with traditional Muslims and achieved wider entrance into Christian churches, the "classic" beliefs of Elijah Muhammad are being seemingly modified, so that the NOI appears less sectarian and more like a bona-fide Islamic movement.

To start with, the Nation of Islam identifies itself as Islamic. Members call God "Allah," they call themselves Muslims, they teach and worship in mosques, they appeal to the prophet Muhammad, they recite the Muslim creed, and they view the Qur'an as inspired Scripture.


The chief leaders of the NOI (Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Minister Farrakhan) have all made pilgrimages to Mecca, and at the present time NOI members are instructed to fast during the Muslim month of Ramadan and to consult the hadith or traditions ascribed to Muhammad to determine proper conduct and doctrine. Thus, for broad purposes of classification, it seems reasonable to place the NOI somewhere within the Islamic camp.

And, since I'm buzzing around to different bits re: the American Muslim Movement--and one may wonder about my motives-- I'll jot it down.

I'm not anti-Muslim. But, I do think in the present environment, the Muslim establishment should be held to the same standard as the other dominant religions. Accountability.

Because the fundamentalist movement within Islam, and the satellites (NOI) are producing terrorism--I think it is incumbent on the global and American Islamic/Muslim religion to attack terrorism in a strong, undeniable way. IMO, to avoid this dire responsibility is a serious affront to all non-Muslims.

I will go further to report that I have heard and read many accounts of Islamic/Muslim leaders using hate-filled rhetoric, which directly leads adherents to think they are condoned in a holy war against whites in general--Jews and Christians and Americans, in particular. This is going on in gathering places in this country. I think the church/ mosque/ leadership should handle it before the government has to step in. If it gets to that point, imagine the fallout.

You cannot foment terrorism and murder without bearing responsibility.
--------

Also, I am interested in understanding the Movement, and the exodus of so many from Christianity to Islam (or the NOI). Many are saying Christianity is a slave religion, and that the church kept blacks active while MLK was fighting for Civil Rights---but began losing them in the ensuing years. I keep trying to bring the link to a fascinating article, but its so long, I can't get it.

I have just clicked on perc's thread--saw many posts directed to me--and also saw the thread had been locked.

....what to do... There is are a couple of responses that shouldn't be left in the wind...

Thomas-- You mentioned that some people held you accountable for things that happened before you were born, because of the geography of your home. That's ridiculous.

But, in this current climate, when murders are being carried out in the name of a religion, I strongly believe the people associated with that religion owe it to adherents of their religion who are doing the murdering, to publicly rebuke the behavior and say in no uncertain terms that it is wrong and NOT SANCTIONED BY THAT RELIGION.

The most important thing it does is speak to the murderers who are hijacking the religion. It undercuts their ability to hide behind a god and a holy war.

In doing this, they also show the rest of the world that they don't agree with the murder that is going on in the name of their religion.

Christians in the media are always trotted out when a nutty zealot blows up an abortion clinic or shoots an abortion doctor. And, when it comes up in conversation, I am compelled to let others know, that though I am a Christian, I strongly condemn it, and that my religion is no refuge for murderers.

I don'tknow exactly what got the other thread closed. I hope we can discuss related views here without such rancor.

Sophia

Perhaps you and your readers will find this article interesting ---- the author is Muslim herself and is willing to discuss some flaws of her religion:

AT WAR

Blind Faith
Muslims, like Jews and Christians, must own up to problems in their holy book.

BY IRSHAD MANJI
Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Muslim reaction to the beheading of Nicholas Berg tells us a lot about what's happening in the Islamic world. More than that, it reveals what's not happening, yet needs to, if Muslims are going to transcend the intellectual and moral crisis in which we find ourselves today.

First, the good news. A few scholars at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the Harvard of Sunni Islam, are denouncing Mr. Berg's decapitation. So are a handful of Muslim lobby groups in Europe and North America. Add some English-language newspapers based in the Middle East, and a picture of progress emerges.

But the big canvas shows that many of these Muslims continue to cradle a dangerous delusion. Islam, they still insist, had nothing to do with this horrific crime. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, described Mr. Berg's decapitation as "utterly repugnant to the Islamic rules of war."

A similar sentiment was expressed by Ibrahim Al-Fayoumi of Al-Azhar. He told an online news source that "Islam respects the human being, dead or alive, and cutting off the American's head was an act of mutilation forbidden by Islam."

Sound familiar? In the days following September 11, Muslim spokespeople mouthed the mantra that the Koran makes it absolutely clear when jihad can and can't be pursued, and the terrorists unquestionably crossed the line. To quote a Muslim American scholar who typified this perspective, Allah "says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity."

Wishful whitewashing. The Koran verse that's cited as "unequivocal" actually bestows wiggle room. Here's how it fully reads: "We laid it down for the Israelites," meaning those who believe in one God, "that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind." Sadly, the clause starting with "except" can be deployed by militant Muslims to fuel their jihads. That's precisely how Nicholas Berg's executioners justified their travesty.

Which means religion is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims. Just as moderate Christians and Jews acknowledge the nasty side of their holy texts, modern Muslims ought to come clean about how our sacred script informs terror. One can argue that certain passages are being politically exploited--and, indeed, they are. The point is, however, that they couldn't be exploited if they didn't exist.

We shouldn't underestimate the impact of this Koranic loophole, which reads, "except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land." Osama bin Laden had it in mind when he announced a jihad against America in the late 1990s.

• Did economic sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the United Nations but demanded by Washington, cause the "murder" of half a million children and counting? Bin Laden believed so.

• Did the bootprints of American troops in Saudi soil qualify as "villainy in the land"? To bin Laden, you bet.

• As for American civilians, can they be innocent of either "murder" or "villainy" when their tax money helps Israel buy tanks to raze Palestinian homes? A no-brainer for bin Laden.

Most Muslims can agree that Osama bin Laden is morally Neanderthal for manipulating the Koran to pursue this strain of jihad. The question remains, can we Muslims agree that his mercenaries are scripturally supported at all?

Of course, context is important. But the scholarship that puts such verses "into context" reeks of evasion.

Consider one high-profile argument that defends "authentic" Islam as a religion of peace. According to this argument, since God advised Prophet Mohammed in good times and bad, the Koran's tough verses merely reflect the bad times Mohammed faced in his 25 or so years of spreading Islam. Mohammed began by proselytizing in Mecca, where slaves, widows, orphans and the working poor latched on to his unconventional message of mercy. God knows, these outcasts needed a dose of mercy in the economically stratified and morally decadent money capital of Arabia. At first, then, the Koran's revelations emphasized compassion.

But within no time the business establishment of Mecca grew threatened--and threatening. Mohammed and his flock pulled up stakes and moved to Medina in order to protect themselves. That, goes the argument, is when the Koran's message of compassion turns to retribution. In Medina, some residents welcomed the Muslim influx, and others decidedly didn't. Among those who didn't were Medina's prominent Jewish tribes, which colluded with Mecca's pagans to assassinate Mohammed and annihilate Islam's converts. The reason they failed is that God instructed Mohammed to strike preemptively. (Evidently, the pre-emptive doctrine didn't begin with President Bush.)

This, the argument continues, is where all the vitriol in the Koran comes from. However, the argument persists, retribution isn't the spirit with which Muslims started out. They resorted to it for the purpose of self-preservation, and only temporarily. The older, "authentic" message of Islam is the one on which Mohammed launched his mission.

How emotionally comforting. While I would love to believe this account of things, the more I read and reflect, the less sense it makes. For starters, it's not clear which verses came to Mohammed when. The Koran appears to be organized by size of verse--from longer to shorter-- and not by chronology of revelation. How can anyone isolate the "earlier" passages, let alone read into them the "authentic" message of the Koran? Muslims have to own up to the fact that the Koran's message is all over the map. Compassion and contempt exist side by side, as they do in every sacred book.

Moderate Muslims, like moderate Christians and Jews, shouldn't be afraid to ask: What if our holy script isn't perfect? What if it's inconsistent, even contradictory? What if it's riddled with human biases? As an illiterate trader, Prophet Mohammed relied on scribes to jot down the words he heard from God. Sometimes the Prophet himself had an agonizing go at deciphering what he heard. What's wrong with saying so?

What's wrong with not saying so is this: If we Muslims can't bring ourselves to question the peaceable perfection of the Koran, then we can't effectively question the actions that flow from certain readings of it. All we'll be doing is chanting that the terrorists broke the rules, without coming to terms with where they got their concept of "the rules" in the first place. In which case, we'll only be sanitizing what we don't want to hear.

That's no way to address Islam's intellectual lethargy, or the moral dereliction that goes with it.

Ms. Manji is the author of "The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith," published in January by St. Martin's Press. Her Web site is www.muslim-refusenik.com.

perception-- Thank you. This is what I've been alluding to.

Since there is wiggle room for the interpretation of who you can murder--and since that interpretation HAS been touted by Bin Laden, and eagerly followed by so many Muslims, it is important to point out and condemn.

And, this very belief, I believe, is why so many Islamic leaders are not speaking out. Because they believe it IS a Muslim's right to do these things, based on the 'scripture' your author focuses on.

Perc

I dont disagree with the analysis you posted above. Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism have moved on from a literal interpretation of religious texts.

Beheading someone is just as barbarous as cooking them in an electric chair. I'm against both.

Decent societies treat their prisoners decently. Neither American nor Islamic societies qualify on that basis.

Steve says: Decent societies treat their prisoners decently. Neither Islamic or Islamic societies qualify on that basis.

A lame attempt to make moral equivalence between a society(The Western) which has abused prisoners and, because it is run by the rule of law, is prosecuting those responsible, and a society which tolerates a group of madmen who are bent on murdering anyone who does not agree with their religious beliefs.

THERE IS NO EQUIVALANCY.

If Steve is really eager to learn the truth he can read the article written by the foremost Scholar of Islam in the United States- Bernard Lewis. This authority has made a case that the radical fundamentalists don't merely want to abuse prisoners but want to destroy and overthrow all of the West, if possible, because the West's secularism and modernity, in their view, threatens the will of Allah.

If you really are interested- Steve-
www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm.

The essay is entitled- "The Roots of Muslim Rage". It was written in1990 and has the subtitle-

Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their differences will not easily be mollified.