Many Americans find it difficult to believe that the U.S. has anything to learn from Europe when it comes to religion. The recent controversies over mosques suggest otherwise. That's because this is a story that has been playing out in Europe for some time, with results ranging from restrictions on religious liberty to a worsening of tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. America cannot afford to go down the same path.
Anti-mosque sentiment is clearly on the rise in America. Efforts to block the construction of the proposed Cordoba Center in New York City are the most noteworthy, but proposed Islamic centers and mosques in places such as Murfreesboro, TN, and Temecula, CA, are also under attack. Why? Some opponents are quick to cite mundane reasons such as zoning laws or increased traffic. But one look at some of the placards in a recent Murfreesboro protest tells a different story. One stated: "Mosque Leaders Support Killing Converts Tell It!" And one protester told a local news station that "[i]n Islam, a mosque means 'We have conquered this country' ... They're going to say, 'We have conquered Tennessee.'"
Opposition to mosques is rising in America because of a deep-rooted fear that Islam is a violent religion bent on terrorism whose increasing presence and visibility is a threat to public safety if not national security. Sarah Palin's recent tweet confirmed this popular conception of Islam. Coining a new word for the occasion, she pleaded with "peaceful Muslims" to "pls refudiate" the plans for a proposed mosque near Ground Zero. By implication, to build a mosque near Ground Zero is to engage in a violent act that, in Palin's words, "stabs you in the heart."
Deb Feyerick, a CNN reporter, reinforced this perception of Islam while interviewing Sharif El-Gamal, one of the Cordoba Center's developers. When El-Gamal made the point that Jewish community centers and YMCAs were located throughout the country, Feyerick responded, "But the Jews didn't take down the two towers ... But the Christians didn't take down the two towers." Her choice of words was unfortunate. The implication was that "the Muslims" (as opposed to some Muslims) did destroy the World Trade Center. Islam equals violence, terrorism. It doesn't deserve the same freedoms as other religious communities.
All of this eerily resembles European attitudes towards Islam. In Europe, some extraordinarily tough measures have been enacted to counter Islam's increasing public presence, most notably through the bans on veils in France. But mosques and minarets (the prayer towers connected to mosques) have also been targeted. In 2008, two Austrian provinces banned the construction of "conspicuous" mosques and minarets. The Swiss people voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the construction of new minarets in November 2009. And controversies persist over mosques and minarets in cities such as Copenhagen, Cologne, and Marseille.
Many Europeans are clearly anxious over Islam's increasing presence and visibility because they, too, tend to define Islam as an inherently violent religion. The Swiss campaign against minarets succeeded because organizers tapped into popular fears concerning Islam, with minarets portrayed as weapons used by Muslims to conquer Europe. Polls indicate that plenty of other Europeans share these fears.
For their part, Muslims have adopted an accommodating attitude in the overwhelming majority of conflicts concerning mosques and minarets. They have agreed to relocate proposed mosques to less central (and less visible) locations. They have modified architectural designs so that mosques look, well, less mosque-like. They have kept minarets relatively short so as not to rival church towers and steeples, or they have simply not erected minarets. They have developed creative ways to issue the call to prayer, such as short-wave transmitters and text messaging, to ease concerns from non-Muslims over hearing the call from loudspeakers. In the Marseille mosque currently under construction, a flashing light will be used to issue the call to prayer.
Over and over again, Muslims across Europe have responded with respect and deference to local and national concerns and have followed the relevant laws affecting where or how they can build mosques. This is a far cry from the violent, anti-democratic reputation that the Islamic faith still has in much of Europe. But the second-class treatment Muslims have received is taking its toll, and tensions are rising between European countries and Muslims, particularly among the younger generations. Many Muslims continue to feel like foreigners and outsiders in their own country.
The European response to Islam continues in many cases to operate on unfortunate stereotypes and caricatures. It involves rendering that which is visible invisible, that which is present absent. In doing so, freedom of religion becomes the major casualty, hostility towards Muslims persists, and opportunities to build bridges between Islam and the West pass by.
We should think long and hard about whether we want to mimic Europe in its treatment of Islam. Our nation prides itself on religious tolerance and diversity. Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. But efforts to prohibit the construction of Islamic centers and mosques undermine these principles and move us closer to a Europe where restrictions on religious liberty are the most common means of "dealing" with Islam. We also risk missing some of the same opportunities as Europeans if we oppose the construction of religious centers whose purpose often includes helping non-Muslims discover what they share in common with Muslims, either as people of faith or as loyal citizens.
America has a long history of learning from some of the mistakes made in Europe when it comes to religious toleration and liberty. Here we have yet another opportunity to do so. Let's not miss it.
Sarah Palin Takes to Twitter to Oppose Ground Zero Mosque - ABC News
Islam is rejects freedom of religion. The prophet of said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." The punishment for apostacy in Islam is the death penalty. This is uncontroversial among all schools of both sunni an shiite Islam.
If Islam spreads in the west then the major casualty will be freedom of religion. Opposition to Islam is a duty for anyone who believes in freedom of conscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
What you have is a situation where Muslim immigrant populations are young and rapidly increasing. The native populations are older and starting to decrease. Some estimates have as high as 50% Muslim populations by 2050. But I think 20% is more realistic. Still, this situation is causing a lot of stress in Europe of its future.
Most European countries have been secular for decades. No one knows how things will work out when you mix a secular population with a growing Muslim population that may not embrace scular ideals. Its a very difficult situation.
In the US, the fastest growing population is Hispanic. Despite the noise from the right, Hispanic culture and American culture is actually pretty compatible. Islam and Secularism is a lot more complicated.
European countries are different in their cultures, languages and customs. But one thing they may have in common is a traditionally homogeneous population. With the advent of immigration, this has changed in such a way that many in the Netherlands, France, Belgium or Switzerland, are experiencing an uncomfortable increase in non-traditional and ultra-religious fervor. During the last 50 years, secularism has often replaced Christian beliefs, and having to confront the introduction of Islam into their daily lives difficult, or perhaps untenable.
The US is neither secular in spirit, nor has it been homogeneous from the outset. Introducing new blood every 10-20-30 years is common. But one of the rules of that introduction has also been "assimilation." Assimilation neuters the other, it does not magnify it.
In terms of the resistance to mosques and minarets, this has been more prominent in countries that are so-called new "host countries" when it comes to immigration: Switzerland, Italy, etc. Countries in which a significant Muslim presence has existed for longer have had fewer tensions in this realm, though in my research, I have found that even countries such as Britain or the Netherlands have had some high-profile conflicts over mosques and minarets.
Secularism is more prevalent in Europe, and that does complicate the situation for Muslims there. Americans are more comfortable in general with religion having a public role, even if we don't necessarily on agree on what that role should be or what shape it should take. But the overlap is still noteworthy in terms of the suspicions that non-Muslims in Europe and the U.S. have concerning the "nature" of Islam.
Thanks for your feedback.
The Netherlands, a country I lived in, was badly shaken by the death of Theo van Gogh, on a bicycle, in daylight. This incident and others have given way to major shifts in Dutch tolerance and has seen the growth of the anti-immigrant movement. This murder was experienced by some as a wake up call that too much tolerance was not in the country's best interest.
And while I don't support intolerance or discriminatory practices here in the States or abroad, I do understand the tension and difficulties faced in finding a middle ground that dissuades the extremist views of the more outspoken members on both sides of the issue.
I myself struggle with finding a good balance.
"and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers" Sura 3:54
http://www.muslimhope.com/DeceptionInIslam.htm
3:54 And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
See what you be people do? This is the problem.
“Let there arise out of you a
band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right,
forbidding what is wrong, they are the ones to attain felicity.†Qur’an 3:104
Who is better in speech than one who
calls to God, works righteousness and says
‘I am one of those who submit’?â€
Qur’an 41:33
"Firstly, Islamic references tell us that on the Day of Judgement – a day so large in
magnitude that pregnant mothers will drop their loads, we will be interrogated by
non-Muslims as to why we did not inform them of this reality. What will we say to our
Creator when knowing that Islam had such great capacity to alleviate human suffering,
including depression, debt and poverty that we said nothing? Are we more conscious
of our responsibility to God or to people?"
http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/iERA_NonMuslimPerceptionsOnIslam_and_Muslims_ResearchReport.pdf
Islamic Education and Research Academy
Your writing frequently has the ring of dawa.
band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right,
forbidding what is wrong, they are the ones to attain felicity.†Qur’an 3:104
What is bad about that one?
Who is better in speech than one who
calls to God, works righteousness and says
‘I am one of those who submit’?â€
Qur’an 41:33
If God exist, that is true. If God doesn't exist, why do you care? I don't see the negative.
"Firstly, Islamic references tell us that on the Day of Judgement – a day so large in
magnitude that pregnant mothers will drop their loads, we will be interrogated by
non-Muslims as to why we did not inform them of this reality. What will we say to our
Creator when knowing that Islam had such great capacity to alleviate human suffering,
including depression, debt and poverty that we said nothing? Are we more conscious
of our responsibility to God or to people?"
That shows that we will be question by those who were not informed of Islam. Thus, we as Muslims must teach people about Islam. What is bad about this?
I don't see the negative at all.
Christophe, I am tired of playing this game with you. Counter my individual points. If you feel I am twisting the meaning (which in my opinion makes me feel you don't know English, no offense), let me hear your take based on each sentence. This is how a debate works.
I just showed you exactly, in simple English, where you steered away from the meaning of the 4 verses we are discussing. No need to go further.
Stop trying to conclude that I am pushing any agenda or belong to any group. You will FAIL.
That would actually be only judging me through your own biased views.
If you want to understand Quran "your way, good for you.
If you believe that the message is not promoting/justifying any violence, great for everyone.
I wish all Muslims agreed with you.
Just keep in mind that every time a Muslim harms an innocent, supposedly in the name of God, it in fact makes it tougher for the Muslim faith to be welcome in non-Muslims countries.
No you didn't. Did you go line by line like I did? No.
That is what YOU say not what I said.
Violent Muslims can easily find in the Quran the justification of their violence towards non-believers.
THAT is what I said. Please don't twist my comments the same way you twist the meaning of the Quran. Which BTW sounds like a very un-Muslim behavior to me.
maybe, but that doesn't mean the Qur'an is violent. Also, do you believe that everytime a Muslim is violent, the Muslim uses the Qur'an as justification?
"Please don't twist my comments the same way you twist the meaning of the Quran. "
Listen to me. Address the quote line by line. That is all I can say to you.
Stop trying to spin the meaning of this verse and let the text speak for itself.
The message is pretty clear."
It is. That is why 99% of Muslims, including myself, are not violent. The text doesn't speak of anything bad. When you made your rude, arrogant, 5 word summeries of each verse; it is clear that you delibrately ignored many condition and words that Qur'an said. Again, go line by line to prove me wrong. Evidence based in the actions of Muslims isn't Islam. You must use the Qur'an's quotes if you will argue.
from: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm
First, consider that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law. The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.†These would specifically be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims). Yet, the word “dhimmi†comes from the Arabic root meaning “guilt†or "blame." ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, In an Antique Land]
However much of an infidel apologist for Islam you are, rest assured, you are still not innocent under Islam and therefore it is not against Islam to dispose of you when your usefulness to their Jihad goals is done.
"making concrete "dialog" quite fruitless given that most infidels are truly naive and clueless about this problem,"
It is if people like you won't even listen to an actual Muslim's opinion on his own religion. You make stuff up that I didn't even say.
"another biggie is the word "innocent" which you will often hear Islam supposedly is against killing innocents. But what does innocent actually mean in Islam, as opposed to the commonsense Western definition. "
Merriam Webster - a WESTERN English dictionary agrees with the Muslim definiton.
1) free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil
2) harmless in effect or intention
3) lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness
If you disagree with these defintions, I can't imagine what yours is.
"First, consider that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law."
1) That is not true.
2) Shariah isn't the Qur'an. Any fault in it is human responsiblity.
3) The website of yours is not neutral
4) The website of yours makes obvious contradicions. If you disagree, I will point the out.
5) A educated person knows that one must look at many sources to make an opinion.
6) The only acceptible thing that you can quote is the Qur'an.
"Yet, the word “dhimmi†comes from the Arabic root meaning “guilt†or "blame." "
No, it means contract.
"rest assured, you are still not innocent under Islam and therefore it is not against Islam to dispose of you when your usefulness to their Jihad goals is done. "
That is a perverted viewpoint.
You proved NOTHING but your INABILITY to refute my reading of Quran verses except by invoking the "context" in which Quran was created. This equals to extenuating circumstances, nothing more."
1) You did not respond at all. You did not counter anything I said.
2) My inability? What flaw was in my argument?
3) I didn't even need to use context for the four quotes to prove that they support everything I am saying
Let us be serious. Read my response to the quotes and try to negate them. That is all I am asking. But really, you didn't reply.
"2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."
First Sentence: When they drive you out of your home or land, you can hit them back to reclaim it. If they try to kill you, you can defend yourself.
Second Sentence: Never attack people in a place of worship (Mosque, Church, Synagogue), unless they attack you first.
Third Sentence: If you try to kill, you can defend yourself. If you think that this is bias and doesn't apply to non-Muslims, incorrect. A Muslim as described in the Qur'an would never do this. Only believers have the capacity to do so.
First Sentence part 1: War is allowed (in context, only in certain conditions: Self-Defense and land reclamation), but is looked down upon.
Part 2: In life, you may hate something good, or love something bad. God is the only one who knows all.
http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/
Sharia Law is already taking priority over human rights in the usa.
http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/
Sharia Law is already taking priority over human rights in the US!!
funny, as a light brown-skinned American, this is how I have felt EVERY single day of my life since 9/11, with the nasty and despicable looks I get from people everyday just because of the color of my skin. and i have these fundy religious nuts to thank for it.
the only place religion belongs is in a textbook.
These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text - as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.
from: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm where there are examples listed
Can you not think for yourself? Use your mind and own so-called knowledge and show me the actually quotes you speak of. I assure you. You misread.