All Comments (18)

Goerge Bush and Dick chenney are christian extremists and bonefide terrorist. So far they have shown themselves to be more barbaric than Bin Laden. they are the finest specimen of western monsterosity.

Brother Zaid Shakir

Thanks for the post. Also thanks for mentioning that,

" I do not mean to imply that the lives of those civilians who have been senselessly slaughtered in operations attributed to Muslim extremists in Dar as-Salaam, New York, Madrid, Bali, Casa Blanca, London, and indeed in Iraq itself, while far fewer in number, are any less valuable than those killed in the places mentioned above."

While Muslims join there voice to condemn killing and terrorizing innocent people; USA and their allies have got into a race with the terrorists in terrosing & killing, to show that their bigger/stronger than them !! History i'm sure will prove that with records.

Congratulatiomns! you are bigger terrorists, recognized undoubtedly; will you mind stopping now and try some civilized way. Does the common people of those countries have some responsibility? or they have also lost their civility along with their govts?

You stated in your posting that "The murder of an innocent human being anywhere is condemnable and inexcusable, regardless of that individual’s race, religion, national origin, gender or social class. This is a lesson that must be reiterated by the Pope, the Rabbi, the Imam, the Church, the Mosque, the secularists, the atheists, everyone."

There is too much killing in this world. As an atheist, I do not believe in any divine law against the killing of another person, but if killing of another person became socially acceptable (based on virtually any motivation or component of who the victim was), where then will that lead society? When human life has no value, what is stopping anyone from killing anyone else for any reason? What for that matter is keeping anyone from killing me? We all (societies, governments and individuals) spend so much time and energy either killing one another or trying not to get killed. How much closer towards a more enlightened / harmonious / healthy / peaceful world might we be if we had spent that time and energy on more productive humanist endeavors to rid our societies of pain, suffering and subjugation.
Your statement is right on point. This is all of our problem and we all need to consider the human and societal aspects of such violence. I am impressed with your posting and was glad to read it, too many in this forum have been cookie-cutter, politically correct, sound-bite answers that barely approach the issue at hand. Sincerely, thank you.

One more note. I Indonesia, the Supreme Court absolved the Sheik of all crimes even though by all accounts, he was behind the Bali bombings that killed hundreds of innocent tourists. The Australian Prime Minister is on record voicing his extreme displeasure with this ruling. Far from bringing these terrorists to justice, the Muslim population is shielding them from the long arm of the law. If that was not true, we would have got Osama and his gang long ago. And Muslim apologists wonder why Islam's image is tarnished around the world!

Rafael:

You fail to see reality and insist on burying your head in the sand. Can you tell me why Muslims are resorting to violence in so many parts of the world? They are not simply against the West. You may be able to dispense with the notion that a small minority of Muslim radicals are involved but let me tell you that the problem is not so mInor as you make it sound. This is called burying your head in the sand. Do you know that Muslims are conducting violent campaigns in Thailand and the Philippines? Thousands are being killed in Southern Thailand because Muslims want independence. Same thing in the Philippines. These violent campaigns are causing a major impact on the peace and stability of those regions, not to mention India and Russia.

The message I take away from all this violence is that Muslims are unable to live in peace with the so-called infidels. They are fighting against the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Christians, and also against themselves.

I am sure that you will say that the problem is with the world, not the Muslims. Well, it's time to wake up and ask some real hard questions. The cause of all this violence by Muslims in the name of Islam is simple--INTOLERANCE OF OTHER FAITHS, A TWISTED BELIEF IN GOD, WHAT THEIR PROPHET SAID, WHAT IS PERMISSIABLE UNDER ISLAM, AND A SEIGE MENTALITY ARISING FROM THIS "US" VERSUS "THEM" MENTALITY. IF MUSLIMS BLAME THE WORLD BUT FAIL TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES, THEN THEY CAN NEVER EMBRACE REFORM AND THE VIOLENCE WILL CONTINUE.

Unfortunately it seems that many people either failed to read this article, or failed to comprehend what Imam Zaid was saying in it.

TO VERITAS LOGOI:

I would ask that you please know what you are talking about BEFORE you make such statements as "God's last prophet Jesus the Christ". Did Jesus teach that he was the last and final Prophet of God? No, on the contrary, the Bible teaches...

[1 John 4:1-3]
(1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
(2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
(3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So, according to the Bible, every "spirit" that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is a true prophet of God and every "spirit" that confesses otherwise is not a prophet of God. If Jesus had believed or taught that he was the last prophet of God, then there would have been no need to even make such a statement. The disciples would have understood that ANY claimant to prophethood coming after Jesus would be false, but this was not the case.

Supposedly, there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. A small percentage of them have this Jihadist-"kill the Infidel"-mentality and yet many (if not most of us) think that they represent the true teachings of the religion of Islam. Something just doesn't seem right with that assessment. Why judge Islam by the actions of a minority group? Should Christianity be judged by the likes of the KKK or Aryan Nation that have committed and currently commit heinous acts in the name of Christianity? I would hope not.

Question: How is it that Christian and Jewish and Zoroastrian minority communities have been living amongst Muslim-majority countries for over 1300 years such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco, etc.? If Islam was bent on completely wiping out non-Muslims, then why have they allowed these minority communities to continue to exist? Why haven't the 6 or 7 million Muslims in America taken up arms and declared Jihad against us? What are they waiting for? There are millions of more adult Muslims in America than we have military personnel in the US Armed Forces. It's not like our military installations are not easily locatable online. It just seems like a ridiculous argument to say that Islam teaches violence and murder and the like. Obviously most of us are reading and coming to conclusions that are contrary to what they understand when they read their religious texts.

Asalamualykum Imam Zaid,

Great post.

Ma'salama

What a shame. This Zaid Shakira could have been used mightily by the Lord. He used to be a Baptist, a follower of Jesus. Now he is a follower of the murderer and pedophile Mohammed.

May you be judged for your rejection of the true Lord and Savior, God's last prophet Jesus the Christ.

I am no apologist for terrorists or violent behavior as i have walked through the fire myself and remained pacifist- but it seems thar most of the islamic terrorist acts you can think of are in fact politically motivated. I say this having thought deeply about it. The Prophet(pbuh) was the living embodinment of humility and an elitist superior attitude should be anathema to islamic behavior.
One does not have to take on the belief systems of a person they are engaged in dialogue with. It is not necessary to discard ones own beliefs or diminish their meaning,this is only patronizing someone and hypocritical also.
I contend that empathy and sincere concern devoid of finger pointing, blame and accusatory postures should be sufficient for effective listening and dialogue. Spiritual one-upsmanship is not conducive to real communication.

Asalamu Ala`ykum

Respected Imam Zaid,
A very nicely written and well balanced article.
We need more scholars like yourself to guide the Muslim youth.

May you be rewarded by Allah ,for your input in helping us move from ignorance to awareness.

I will readily acknowledge that much of the verbal interaction between Muslims and Christians can hardly be called dialogue. A dialogue is a conversation in which the parties involved are willing to truly listen to each other and discard any notions that their beliefs are inerrant. But inherent to the Christian faith (and to the Islamic faith for that matter) is a claim to moral and spiritual superiority. Both the Bible and the Koran make explicit the point that there is only one true faith, one true God, one true way to live. It is a shame that the differences in these holy books have led to so much bloodshed.

On a different note, when you compare instances of Christian and Islamic inspired violence, I would like you to consider the fact that the western (you imply that they are Christian) perpetrators of the attacks in Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Panama City, and now in Iraq did not have any particular religious motives for their violent actions. But, as you well know, the perpetrators of violence in New York, Madrid, Bali, Casa Blanca, London were highly motivated, if not exclusively so, by the supposedly inerrant words of the Koran. So, if you want to undermine the Christian claim to moral superiority (and it should be undermined, mind you), do so without citing the above instances of western violence. Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Panama City, and Iraq have little to nothing to do with Christianity while New York, Madrid, Bali, Casa Blanca, London have everything to do with Islam.

A salaamu alaikum,
Br. Shakir,
I read the speech 3 times in its entirety, and I also wondered why there was no reponse by the persian. It seems incongruous that one would passively accept such a scourging remark.
peace

The question is not to occupy the lands of others but when to invoke the "do not occupy rule." Now just when did Spain, Turkey, Phillipine Islands, a lot of places become Muslim lands?

Temporarily, Muslims are weak, unable to occupy the lands of others. If that was not so, would Israel be a nation or would Muslims occupy their land?

If the Quran does not demand or at least advocate the spread of Islam by the sword then how did so much land that did not belong to Muslims get in their hands? Are Jews qualified to be Muslims?

The weak always invoke the "do not occypy" rule while the strong keep on occupying. Strength and weakness rise and fall like the tide.

When all else fails in the spread of faith then the sword will be employed. God, Allah wills it and we don't even have to let all else fail first.

I agree that we need all people of good will to address all the root causes of violence. In doing so, we need to draw distinctions between various conflicts. This is not the forum to discuss what constitutes a just war from Western or Islamic perspectives, but such a discussion might be fruitful. I think that the laws of just war as defined by the Quran and Hadith close enough to Western ideas so we could find a theoretical meeting of the minds.

How this works in practice, is, of course, something else. WWII was a just war that the forces of light had to win. Whether or not Dresden , for example, was really necessary can be second guessed, but the context was a just war.

I also put Afghanistan in that category but the West has so far failed to live up to its obligations to the Afghani people since the war.

Another worthless and trite answer. Religion DOES indeed cause and promote violence and more importantly deep intolerance, historically and today --- Islam being the more violent and intolerant today obviously. The islamic world has essentially missed and banned all new knowledge and wisdom of mankind due to its rigid intolerance of anything but islamic dogma. The middle east really is stuck in the middle ages. We need honest discourse or they will forever be. We need open societies that welcome and consider criticism, instead of demonizing skeptical minds (infidels).

I start this first comment with the traditional greetings of peace that has been shared by many generations including our noble ancestors.

As Salaamu 'alaikum.

Dear Imam Zaid,

Let's hope that the wisdom shared on this post will be absorbed by ears, minds and hearts that will be able to apply that knowledge into practical, beneficial means.

"The subtlety here revolves around the implicit assumption that the church has brought about a society that has escaped the scourge of politically-motivated violence."

This statement is very profound and I hope more people will reflect on this.

All the best.
Mikael