The DNC Join with Islam(DNC Meeting)

[White_Male_Canada]

Feeling their oats now,getting bold and brave.

Video: Imam prays to stop ‘oppression and occupation’ at DNC meeting.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/02/video-imam-prays-to-stop-oppression-and-occupation-at-dnc-meeting/

"In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation."

Husham Al-Husainy, Imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center.
Dearborn, Michigan

Al-Husainy seemed very happy leading almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs.
Later, at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn’s Bint Jebail Cultural Center... was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric...cheering others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are “diseased.”

[White_Male_Canada]

In mentioning "Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed" I expect that he sounded wonderfully generous and ecumenical to the assembled Democrats. But in fact, he was almost certainly invoking them in their capacity as Muslim prophets: it is mainstream Islam that all of these were prophets who taught Islam, and that the followers of Moses and Jesus corrupted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity. So what seems to be a gesture of ecumenical generosity is actually a declaration of religious imperialism and the delegitimization of other religions.

Also, imagine if a Christian priest or minister had prayed at a DNC meeting that those attending be guided away from the path of those doomed by God. In this, in any case, the Imam is echoing the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur'an and most common prayer of Islam. It asks Allah: "Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray." The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the "straight path" is Islam -- cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito's book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah's anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians. The classic Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains:

Allah asserted that the two paths He described here are both misguided when He repeated the negation `not'. These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why `anger' descended upon the Jews, while being described as `led astray' is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from its proper resources.
This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews,

[مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ]

(Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60).

The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them,

[قَدْ ضَلُّواْ مِن قَبْلُ وَأَضَلُّواْ كَثِيراً وَضَلُّواْ عَن سَوَآءِ السَّبِيلِ]

(Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path) (5:77).

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015094.php

[yodajazz]

To me it is clear that there needs to be a theological dialogue between the religions. I am a Christian, but it is clear to me Christians have gone astray at various times in history; the Crusades, World Wars, and Iraq are times I would name. I would also point out that Muslims are going astray from their prime teachings by bombing innocent people too.

Still to say that Christians have gone astray as it said in the passage does not explain the context. If they have gone astray then discussion could reveal directions toward living in peace. Where are these discussions? Certainly no bomb has the power to change ideas written in religious literature.

And speaking of going astray. The US claims to be a Christian nation or at least many people complain about putting God in our public life. Forgiveness is a central concept of Christianity, yet the US is the most punishment oriented nation on the earth, putting the highest percentage of its citizens in jail. In addition most municipalites exist by punishing drivers for infractions. The practice of religious principles are more important than putting God's name in a pledge but ignoring his 'words'.

"With all thy getting, get understanding", is a bible passage that holds the key changing the course of wars and hate practiced by our so called lovers of God (Allah). Having an Iman pray at a meeting is one step closer to getting real dialogue.

To me it is clear that there needs to be a theological dialogue between the religions. I am a Christian, but it is clear to me Christians have gone astray at various times in history; the Crusades, World Wars, and Iraq are times I would name. I would also point out that Muslims are going astray from their prime teachings by bombing innocent people too.

Still to say that Christians have gone astray as it said in the passage does not explain the context. If they have gone astray then discussion could reveal directions toward living in peace. Where are these discussions? Certainly no bomb has the power to change ideas written in religious literature.

And speaking of going astray. The US claims to be a Christian nation or at least many people complain about putting God in our public life. Forgiveness is a central concept of Christianity, yet the US is the most punishment oriented nation on the earth, putting the highest percentage of its citizens in jail. In addition most municipalites exist by punishing drivers for infractions. The practice of religious principles are more important than putting God's name in a pledge but ignoring his 'words'.

I have proven, on this message board, that America was founded by Christian men and founded on Christian principles. Still, these Christian men were smart enough to understand. The government has no place establishing any law with regard to any religion. America is governed by certain Christian principles, but not entirely by.

And this talk of "discussions", I have to respectfully say... that's bullshit. Until Muslims take on the motherfuckers who are "hijacking" their religion, there can be no talks. Someone has to kill those motherfuckers... AND FAST.

You can't have discussions with the insane-

"Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue."- Sheikh Abdullah Azzam

That means when we show up for said "discussions", they pop a cap in your ass.


"With all thy getting, get understanding", is a bible passage that holds the key changing the course of wars and hate practiced by our so called lovers of God (Allah). Having an Iman pray at a meeting is one step closer to getting real dialogue.

Nah. I'm beginning to see. Part of this war is Islam vs Islam. Islam needs to clean it's own dirty laundry before any religious dialogue. Islam is involved in 31 wars and conflicts on this great green earth. It's clear that it's a house of chaos. It's a house run by tyrants and militants and that house won't stand. Neither will the neighborhood it's in.

[yodajazz]

Thanks for saying it respectfully. You yourself point out the conflict within Islam. I heard it broadcast that 10 of Muslim follow the Jihadist ideology. That is potentially 100 million people out of one billion. Is it really practical to try and kill 100 million people? No! I am saying that killing is not going to completely solve a war that is fueled by ideas.

Another way to look at it is to say they are out numbered 9 to one within their own religion. However you say that you (we) should not talk to 90% percent of the Muslims until they do what we tell them. That is a very condescending attitude, which does seem to represent our current government policies. This only fuels anti American sentiment,

“You can't have discussions with the insane- “ true! I contend that having discussions with those that are not insane is important. All Muslims are not insane, but they all have some set of core beliefs, which are based on many things such as what they were taught growing up, what religious leaders emphasizes, their communities etc. The same can be said of anyone identifies with a religious discipline. Beliefs can be shifted by logic, or influence of others sharing thier beliefs. Also most people hold beliefs which are counter to their stated religious beliefs.

“The 9-11 Commission Report” addresses the issue of beliefs as ideas; in a section they titled “the war of ideas”. They pointed that major work needed to be done in that area.

For an example of where to start we can go back to the first post of this thread. The Imam who spoke a Democratic did not kill anybody while there; also he was not killed by them either. They listened to his prayer. So they already demonstrated respect to him. Someone who is an equal of his in Christian theology could sit down with him and discuss ideas of example where both religions are in agreement, or more importantly which philosophies, within each, are more important to emphasize to bring about a peaceful world. Also how to network peaceful concepts could discussed.

In fact, I heard that the name “Islam” itself is a form or ‘peace’. How can we help them live up to the greater meaning? Having respectful dialogue, actually demonstrates peace. Demonstrating peace is in the long run going to be more effective than killing. It is a core value held by both Islam and Christianity. “Blessed are the peace makers for they shall called the children of God”. Mathew chapter 9: verse 5.

[BrendaQG]

T fan the men who founded this nation were Deist. Not realy christian. They basically beleived that god created the universe just as a person makes s watch, wound it up, then walkied away waiting for it to wind down. Not exactly what we today would call "evangelical".

Let us separate what we say when we mean christian. In the USA that usually means "evangleical". That is what the founding fathers were not. They were Quakers, and episcoplian (church of Engalnd follwers), They were puritans and luterans.

The pholosphy that they got for their form of government. A republic, came from not just gressce and Rome but from the Iriquois. The idea of religious tolerance here in America did originally envision muslim worshippers for 1/5 of the slaves brought here were Muslims. The sunni Islam they practiced preached that a ruler has to be choose by Shura "Consultation with the communities elders". Much like our electoral college.

To say that the concepts that went into forming our nation were exclusivelly Christian is just wrong and unsopportable.

[guyone]

T fan the men who founded this nation were Deist. Not realy christian. They basically beleived that god created the universe just as a person makes s watch, wound it up, then walkied away waiting for it to wind down. Not exactly what we today would call "evangelical".

You should check your information a little more carefully. Only two were Thomas Jefferson & Ben Franklin. The majority were episcopalian and presbyterian. And don't confuse Deism with Atheism. The two have nothing to do with one another. Your watch analogy is not quite correct. They just don't buy into all of the catholics dramatics.


Let us separate what we say when we mean christian. In the USA that usually means "evangleical". That is what the founding fathers were not. They were Quakers, and episcoplian (church of Engalnd follwers), They were puritans and luterans.

* SEE PICTURE BELOW FOR BREAKDOWN


The idea of religious tolerance here in America did originally envision muslim worshippers for 1/5 of the slaves brought here were Muslims. The sunni Islam they practiced preached that a ruler has to be choose by Shura "Consultation with the communities elders". Much like our electoral college.

This is nonsense. Are you implying that slave owners who could care less about the welfare of his 'slave' is going to protect the slaves religious rights?

[yodajazz]

This discussion has gotten away from the central topic of this thread, which is how is the US, the West or the world going to deal with the present situation involving Islamic Jihadism? The original poster said that it was wrong to let an Imam pray at a meeting of Democrats. Tfan basically said, that we should try to kill as many as the 100 million Muslim who believe in Jihadism as possible, and then start to dialogue after someone does that. To me this discussion is very important because the Bush Administration has repeatedly refused to officially speak to nations or parties it has conflicts with.

As far as the founding fathers intentions, to me it appears that they accepted a belief in God, but clearly wanted to distance themselves from the British concept of an official government church i.e., The Church of England.

I personally feel that it is ok have God mentioned in public proceedings, displays and documents. The only thing that should not be done is for the government to give God a preference over any religious classification or group of people.

Still that discussion of ‘church and state’ is not as important as the fundamental topic of this thread: How is the world going to exist with different religious belief systems? How do you fight a ‘war’ which is based upon people with a particular belief system and not confined to a defined territory? I still believe that dialogue is an important tool that is not being utilized to the extent that it should be today.