News that an ageing cleric has issued a death fatwa against two Saudi intellectuals does not surprise me...
The cleric is the widely revered Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak. ... The sheikh was incensed by articles in al-Riyadh by Yousef Aba al-Khail and Abdullah bin Bejad al-Otaibi arguing for a more humane and balanced interpretation of the Quran.
Entitled "The other in the Islamic balance" and "The Islam of the sharia and the Islam of struggle", the articles pointed out that the Quran does not denounce non-Muslims as "infidels", but describes Jews and Christians as "people of the Book" and urges Muslims to show respect towards other faiths, their followers and places of worship. Far from hating the "Other", the Quran urges people of all creeds to live in peace.
These are the kinds of simple, sensible things that folk like me have been saying for decades. Indeed, I have been arguing for such a pluralistic interpretation in my Guardian Quran blog, which has been banned in Saudi Arabia.
...It is, of course, beyond the learned sheikh's comprehension that the Quran contains no notion of apostasy. On the contrary, it declares that "there is no compulsion in religion". People are free to change their faith as many times as they like.
But I fear it is worse than that. The Quran is open to a number of interpretations. If, however, you insist that your interpretation is the only correct one, the Truth, then you do much more than simply speak "in the name of God": you not only know the Truth but are the Truth. You assume the absolute power of God. By branding two Muslims "infidels", the sheikh shows his godlike powers. Indeed, he goes where the Quran insistently refuses to: into the realm of the personal relationship between individual and God. The fatwa suggests that the sheikh has godlike knowledge of this relationship, and by sentencing the two authors to death, it even exceeds the bounds of the Quran. The sheikh does not think he is speaking "in the name of God". He thinks he is God incarnate.
RLCC Comment: Now, I've read the Qur'an too. Let me tell you that while it refers to the People of the Book and calls for peace, etc., it is wholly inconsistent that is riddled with hypocrisy. In addition, the peace for which it calls is only provided Islam is the dominant religion and all other people (non-Muslims) must pay the Jizya (a tax; protection money).
This article is calling for something Islam is not. If anyone refuses to pay the Jizya, then that one is unprotected. It means Muslims may do what? Muslims may be and should be violent against them is the answer. Think about it.
Also, you will note that the language aimed at the Sheik is clearly aimed at Jesus Christ as well. Jesus said of himself, "I am the truth." He was and is the truth. That truth is pacifism always, something Muslims reject. Mohammed rejected it. Anyone calling himself or herself a Muslim and also a pacifist is at best being a fool. A pacifist must admit he or she is not a Muslim. Muslims are not pacifists by definition. To be a Muslim is to follow Mohammed's teachings, and violence is something he insisted upon. That's the way it is.
The article smacks of propaganda and psyops. It isn't quite ecumenicism or syncretism, but it sure is working hard to pull Islam in that direction. That's not how it works though. That path fails. Only conversion to real Christianity works in the end. That's the truth. Even Mohammed didn't have the nerve to reject the second coming of Jesus who will reign supreme (the last shall reign).
Also, you will note that the author of the article is claiming to be right in his interpretation of the Qur'an. Therefore, by his own words, he condemns himself for the same thing concerning which he condemns the Sheik. That's hypocrisy. That's what Jesus taught against, and Mohammed held Jesus to be a real prophet of God.
It's too bad Mohammed wasn't bright enough to see how illogical he was being to call Jesus a real prophet and to believe in Jesus's ascendancy but to doubt the very sonship Jesus spoke of concerning himself. Mohammed made it up as he went along while he wondered himself whether he had been visited by an evil jinn or by a real archangel (Gabriel).
Jesus had no such doubts.
New Statesman Contents, April 23, 2008, 5:00pmby Ziauddin Sardar, obtained via:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)