Q Evangelicals Reject Anti-Muslim Hatred http://www.redletterchristians.org/evangelicals-reject-anti-muslim-hatred/ Posted Nov 27 2015 by Mae Elise Cannon with 24 Comments Interfaith Former South Carolina governor David Beasley closed a recent three day gathering focused on Islamophobia and Religious Freedom at Temple University by reminding the thirty plus leaders gathered that Jesus commanded his followers to love their neighbor. In the tone sounding more like a preacher than a former politician, Beasley exhorted, “Jesus never said, ‘Love your neighbor… just not your Muslim ones.’ Jesus never said, ‘Love your neighbor, just not the Shi’ite.’ Jesus never said, ‘Love your neighbor, just not the Sunni.’ Rather, he said, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ This is the most powerful message in the world. When this happens, the whole world will stand still out of awe.” These are compelling words in the midst of a national climate of increased fear and discrimination toward the almost three million Muslim Americans living in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hosted a meeting with American Muslim community leaders to discuss a proposed response to the anticipated incidents planned by hate groups opposing Islam over the recent Columbus Day weekend in several cities across the United States. The gathering at Temple University sought to examine the present challenge of Islamophobia in America, particularly as it relates to Evangelicals and Muslims. Numerous high profile evangelicals were present including Jim Wallis of Sojourners and the Texas Baptist megachurch pastor Bob Roberts, Jr. The gathering was convened by prominent evangelicals, Rick Love of Peace Catalyst and Doug Johnston, president and founder of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), along with Howard Cohen of The Dialogue Institute at Temple University. The Dialogue Institute also hosted the event. Muslim leaders such Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, named as one of the 2011 Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world, were also present. Abdul Rauf was the former imam of the controversial community center and mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. ------------- Participants heard stories of the necessity to distinguish between Islamic extremism, terrorism, and adherents of moderate Islam. Muslim religious leaders, U.S. government officials, and evangelical church leaders presented from a vast array of perspectives and topics ranging from statistics about the American Muslim community to personal narratives of religious discrimination. Azhar Hussain, a Pakistani Muslim, told the story of a suburban American community where his nine year old daughter came home from school beaten up, with cuts and bruises, having been traumatized by a classmate who called her “dirty” and “a filthy Muslim” and told her to go back to where she came from, even though she was born in the United States. Later, Hussain learned the classmate had learned in Sunday school about the “evils of Islam” and that Christians should hate Muslims. Rather than be defeated by the traumatic incident, this young girl opened a lemonade stand to raise money for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and to educate people about the Islamic faith in the hopes of enhancing a better understanding of Islam. In the spirit of a modern day freedom movement, the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative in Washington, D.C was founded as a new Christian human rights organization committed to empowering a global movement to advance religious freedom as a universal right. Elijah Brown, executive vice president, presented at the conference and reminded evangelicals of the responsibility to reflect more deeply on the Scriptures to see the image of God in all people in order to “counter the voices that promote fear of Islam, and model a new way forward by building relationships with those in our community who adhere to other faiths.” It seems there is a growing movement of evangelicals and institutions committed to a new way forward: loving our Muslim neighbors rather than being compelled by hatred. UQ
This is not about "hating" muslims. It is about government's first duty, to protect its citizens. The government cannot admit large numbers of muslims and protect us. Indeed, they cannot protect us from the ones who are already here. There is no compelling reason they should be allowed to move here. If Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam and a large country with plenty of space for them, won't even allow then to move there, why is it our responsibility? We have trouble taking care of the people already here. We can't even provide our Wounded Warriors with adequate health care.
"The wealthiest Gulf nations, ( Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Kuwait)argue that accepting large numbers of Syrian refugees is a serious threat to the safety of its citizens because terrorists could hide themselves among civilians. A Kuwaiti politician appeared on Middle East television and explained why the Gulf States won’t accept Syrian refugees- — They come from different cultures and won’t assimilate." gatewaypundit.com
Just found today: (Note: George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950) was an Irish playwright and a co-founder of the London School of Economics. He is the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938). ) Q https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_Bernard_Shaw Genuine Islam quote The below quote was deleted from the page by User:-ramz-, saying "According to a number of pro-islam sites this quotation is allegedly from "The Genuine Islam", however there seems to be no such work, only two quotes from it circulating on these sites." I have always held the religion of Muhammed in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today. I would like to know how this user knows that this work does not exist. I have seen the quote cited as being from Genuine Islam, Vol. I, No. 8 (1936). If this work does not exist, I can understand removing it, but if it does, the quote should be reinstated. ~ UDScott 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC) User:-anonymous-There is such a work and it I have seen it on a site: http://prophetofislam.com/what_do_others_say.php —This unsigned comment is by 41.242.7.208 (talk • contribs) . I believe the above quote is akin to "religious spam". The linked site does not contain information (author, publishers address, ISBN etc.) The work not only needs to exist but needs to provide authoritative reference for the date and context of Shaw's words. —This unsigned comment is by 87.198.169.92 (talk • contribs) . Some further information on the quotes, paraphrasing, and possible fabrications cited to Shaw were addressed in the further commentary in the following 2 sub-sections. ~ Kalki 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) In keeping with similar sections on other pages, where there are disputes as to citations, I just created a "Disputed" section for these quotations and moved them from the "Unsourced" section: If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam. I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today. Shaw did not shrink from controversy on religious matters, and it is conceivable he made such statements, but they do seem a bit extreme even for him, and uncharacteristic in endorsing any one particular tradition. One of them could allude to Shaw's character Hotchkiss in Getting Married (1908) stating: "I believe the whole British Empire will adopt a reformed Mohammedanism before the end of the century. The character of Mahomet is congenial to me. I admire him, and share his views of life to a considerable extent." but the same character goes on to say "Religion is a great force — the only real motive force in the world; but what you fellows dont understand is that you must get at a man through his own religion and not through yours. Instead of facing that fact, you persist in trying to convert all men to your own little sect, so that you can use it against them afterwards. You are all missionaries and proselytizers trying to uproot the native religion from your neighbor's flowerbeds and plant your own in its place. You would rather let a child perish in ignorance than have it taught by a rival sectary. You can talk to me of the quintessential equality of coal merchants and British officers; and yet you cant see the quintessential equality of all the religions." It should be noted that neither Shaw or his character is making a claim of the absolute equality of all religions, but is stating that there are fundamental and important positive and negative motivational forces at work in all of them, which seems to reflect the general attitude he held most of his life, after his earlier period of adamant atheism. ~ Agnostic Gnostic 09:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC) User:-anonymous- Well I also know that he met with an Islamic scholar named Alim Siddiqui (not to be confused with Kalim), I will try to locate more data... User:-anonymous- Found something, http://www.almazhar.com/bio_aala_hazrat.php and http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/english/Neglected_Genious.pdf (A friend has portion of the dialogue in a book, will try to retrieve it) The Genuine Islam is not in the Library of Congress catalogue, which covers most literature published in English (and much in other languages, too). Neither can I find it in the National Library of Singapore catalogue, although it was allegedly published in Singapore. If the publication does indeed exist, it should be possible to verify it in the catalogue of some established public library. Until that, we have to assume that the quote is not genuine. --Jonund 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) User:-anonymous- The quote is of dubious origin -- see http://idlethink.wordpress.com/2008...nking-of-george-bernard-shaws-views-of-islam/ Let's settle the matter once and for all. The quote is genuine and there is no dispute about its citation either - it is also completely accurate. As for verifying the publication in the catalogue of some established library: it can be found in the New York Public Library (Stephen A. Schwarzman Bldg - General Research: Room 315). —This unsigned comment is by 77.100.17.42 (talk • contribs) . I have now added what seems to be 2 of the most thoroughly researched and accurate versions of quotes from this interview onto the sourced section along with one other on Shaw's views on religion: The apparent multiplicity of Gods is bewildering at the first glance; but you presently discover that they are all the same one God in different aspects and functions and even sexes. There is always one uttermost God who defies personification. This makes Hinduism the most tolerant religion in the world, because its one transcendent God includes all possible Gods… Hinduism is so elastic and so subtle that the profoundest Methodist and the crudest idolater are equally at home in it. Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant. What I may call Manifold Monotheism becomes in the minds of very simple folk an absurdly polytheistic idolatry, just as European peasants not only worship Saints and the Virgin as Gods, but will fight fanatically for their faith in the ugly little black doll who is the Virgin of their own Church against the black doll of the next village. When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes ... they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell. Mahomet was a great Protestant religious force, like George Fox or Wesley…. There is actually a great Hindu sect, the Jains, with Temples of amazing magnificence, which abolish God, not on materialist atheist considerations, but as unspeakable and unknowable, transcending all human comprehension. Letter to the Reverend Ensor Walters (1933), as quoted in Bernard Shaw : Collected Letters, 1926-1950 (1988) by Dan H. Laurence, p. 305 I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capability to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. The world must doubtless attach high value to the predictions of great men like me. I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today. The medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance or bigotry, painted Muhammadanism in the darkest colours. They were in fact trained both to hate the man Muhammad and his religion. To them Muhammad was Anti-Christ. I have studied him — the wonderful man, and in my opinion far from being an Anti-Christ he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much-needed peace and happiness. But to proceed, it was in the 19th century that honest thinkers like Carlyle, Goethe and Gibbon perceived intrinsic worth in the religion of Muhammad, and thus there was some change for the better in the European attitude towards Islam. But the Europe of the present century is far advanced. It is beginning to be enamoured of the creed of Muhammad. Interview, (April 1935), as quoted in The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1 (January 1936), and "Being an Unforgivably Protracted Debunking of George Bernard Shaw’s Views of Islam" (3 December 2008) by Rachel Loew; Loew states that there are many paraphrased and abbreviated versions of this statement online, and that it does not actually appear in the body of the interview itself, but only in a separate quote box. I hold the Prophet of Arabia in great esteem and I can quite understand that it would have been impossible to restrain and wean that illiterate and perverse race, sunk in the miasma of utter moral depravity, from committing the most heinous of crimes, and imbue its people with enthusiasm to strive after righteousness and assimilate high morals and virtues, without projecting such a terrible and intensely awe inspiring spectacle of Hell and an equally captivating and enticing image of a land flowing with milk and honey to represent Heaven before their vision. Interview, (17 April 1935) in The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1 (1936), as quoted at "A Shavian and a Theologian" These are presented chronologically and though they contain factual errors (characterizing Jains as a simply following a sect of Hinduism), they are probably accurate portrayals of the general tenor of this thoughts on religions at the times quoted. ~ Kalki 02:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) All encyclopaediae and scholarly sources of his time held the same opinion about Jainism and Sikhism; so spare Bernard Shaw's intellect your judgement.--174.2.8.221 08:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I certainly have no harsh disposition to the genius of Shaw for making a few incidental errors, as MOST people often do, and the most wise regularly forgive, but I have no intention of sparing the presumptuous from some declarations of my honest assessments and opinions, based on accurate quotations, even if some of the more asinine persist with ever greater force and vigor found in packs of like minded intellectual light-weights to seek to mandate agreements with their own shallow views and suppress those of others, or mock them with rather asinine and irrelevant comments on what some encyclopedias of the time would incorrectly have stated, as well as Shaw, AS IF my remarks were meant to insult him. I rarely make the error of even attempting to make "absolutist" judgments" of ANYONE or anything as if my intellect were capable of properly doing such, despite the common tendency of people with far lesser intellectual integrity to often do that — I often make honest observations in gentle ways with the properly gentle and harsh ways towards those I consider improperly harsh to those who disagree with them or improperly gentle towards those who do. I was just briefly stopping in here, as the levels of fascist presumptions evidently at work here have grown far too distasteful for me to regularly wish to attempt to stomach, when I saw this remark and felt impelled to make an appropriate response. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) + tweaks, and a major revision, after reviewing the whole section and realizing my initial remarks were probably somewhat misdirected. I stuck around a bit more to work on the internet, because I was reading news articles, but reviewing this recent exchange I realize I might have misinterpreted the comments of the anon IP insulting my observations and have now amended my comments to be a more accurate rebuttal to some remarks. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) UQ
From one of the greatest historian: Q Chapter 50 Fall In The East — The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap50.htm Success of Mahomet. The talents of Mahomet are entitled to our applause; but his success has, perhaps, too strongly attracted our admiration. Are we surprised that a multitude of proselytes should embrace the doctrine and the passions of an eloquent fanatic? In the heresies of the church, the same seduction has been tried and repeated from the time of the apostles to that of the reformers. Does it seem incredible that a private citizen should grasp the sword and the sceptre, subdue his native country, and erect a monarchy by his victorious arms? In the moving picture of the dynasties of the East, a hundred fortunate usurpers have arisen from a baser origin, surmounted more formidable obstacles, and filled a larger scope of empire and conquest. Mahomet was alike instructed to preach and to fight; and the union of these opposite qualities, while it enhanced his merit, contributed to his success: the operation of force and persuasion, of enthusiasm and fear, continually acted on each other, till every barrier yielded to their irresistible power. His voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine, to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other: the restraints which he imposed were requisite to establish the credit of the prophet, and to exercise the obedience of the people; and the only objection to his success was his rational creed of the unity and perfections of God. Permanency of his religion. It is not the propagation, but the permanency, of his religion, that deserves our wonder: the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina, is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries, by the Indian, the African, and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. If the Christian apostles, St. Peter or St. Paul, could return to the Vatican, they might possibly inquire the name of the Deity who is worshipped with such mysterious rites in that magnificent temple: at Oxford or Geneva, they would experience less surprise; but it might still be incumbent on them to peruse the catechism of the church, and to study the orthodox commentators on their own writings and the words of their Master. But the Turkish dome of St. Sophia, with an increase of splendour and size, represents the humble tabernacle erected at Medina by the hands of Mahomet. The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. "I believe in one God, and Mahomet the apostle of God," is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue; and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion. The votaries of Ali have, indeed, consecrated the memory of their hero, his wife, and his children; and some of the Persian doctors pretend that the divine essence was incarnate in the person of the Imams; but their superstition is universally condemned by the Sonnites; and their impiety has afforded a seasonable warning against the worship of saints and martyrs. The metaphysical questions on the attributes of God, and the liberty of man, have been agitated in the schools of the Mahometans, as well as in those of the Christians; but among the former they have never engaged the passions of the people, or disturbed the tranquillity of the state. The cause of this important difference may be found in the separation or union of the regal and sacerdotal characters. It was the interest of the caliphs, the successors of the prophet and commanders of the faithful, to repress and discourage all religious innovations: the order, the discipline, the temporal and spiritual ambition of the clergy, are unknown to the Moslems; and the sages of the law are the guides of their conscience and the oracles of their faith. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, the Koran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence; and the laws which regulate the actions and the property of mankind are guarded by the infallible and immutable sanction of the will of God. This religious servitude is attended with some practical disadvantage; the illiterate legislator had been often misled by his own prejudices and those of his country; and the institutions of the Arabian desert may be ill adapted to the wealth and numbers of Ispahan and Constantinople. On these occasions, the Cadhi respectfully places on his head the holy volume, and substitutes a dexterous interpretation more apposite to the principles of equity, and the manners and policy of the times. His merit towards his country. His beneficial or pernicious influence on the public happiness is the last consideration in the character of Mahomet. The most bitter or most bigoted of his Christian or Jewish foes will surely allow that he assumed a false commission to inculcate a salutary doctrine, less perfect only than their own. He piously supposed, as the basis of his religion, the truth and sanctity of their prior revolutions, the virtues and miracles of their founders. The idols of Arabia were broken before the throne of God; the blood of human victims was expiated by prayer, and fasting, and alms, the laudable or innocent arts of devotion; and his rewards and punishments of a future life were painted by the images most congenial to an ignorant and carnal generation. Mahomet was, perhaps, incapable of dictating a moral and political system for the use of his countrymen: but he breathed among the faithful a spirit of charity and friendship; recommended the practice of the social virtues; and checked, by his laws and precepts, the thirst of revenge, and the oppression of widows and orphans. The hostile tribes were united in faith and obedience, and the valour which had been idly spent in domestic quarrels was vigorously directed against a foreign enemy. Had the impulse been less powerful, Arabia, free at home and formidable abroad, might have flourished under a succession of her native monarchs. Her sovereignty was lost by the extent and rapidity of conquest. The colonies of the nation were scattered over the East and West, and their blood was mingled with the blood of their converts and captives. After the reign of three caliphs, the throne was transported from Medina to the valley of Damascus and the banks of the Tigris; the holy cities were violated by impious war; Arabia was ruled by the rod of a subject, perhaps of a stranger; and the Bedoweens of the desert, awakening from their dream of dominion, resumed their old and solitary independence. (187) UQ
" No need to buy Xmas presents for us this weekend. Instead, perhaps you could directly remit Xmas money to your subscribed overseas orphans for their living. Particularly if the orphans are Muslims living in war zone. Talk to your Christian friends doing anything similar. "