Happy Mawlid
i took a class on Islam my last semester of college. Somehow i ended up being 3 credits short of my general education classes to graduate. So i ended up with one final semester, one class and a list of about 20 options to choose from.
Well, Intro to Islam met one day a week on Tuesday night from 6-9:00 pm. We had a winner. Not only did it only meet once a week but the prof was from Lansing and had an hour drive home. So classes ended early, even for a evening class, and the tests were all open book.
Funny thing happened. i actually learned something. A comparative study of a religion i knew absolutely nothing about gave me great respect for the followers of Islam.
btw.... mawlid means birthday and today is the day recognized as the birthday of the prophet Mohammad, or various other spellings. It is not a universally recognized day in the Muslim community, because of many reasons, one being that Muslims do not want their faith to unitentionally evolve into one that worships the prophet instead of Allah, which translates to God in Arabic. Same children of Abraham, different word.
This is a long way to get to my thought. Sorry but i needed to provide some background. i heard the phrase today, which we have all heard; RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST, as a way to define terrorist. i can't stand that phrase, two reasons
First of all radical and fundamentalist really don't belong together. One part is... Well...i don't know, umm radical. The other is... Well...let's call it, fundamental. Do i really need to provide a dictionary to show these words go together like, military intelligence, good catholic, etc...
Second, it's not fair to Islam, and Muslims as a community. It may be borderline racial. It definitely creates fear of the Islamic community. To be fair, i'm asking anyone to stack up the number of bodies of people killed in the name of Christianity to those same numbers created by Islam, over the history of the two religions, to see which one has a stronger history of terrorism. bummer for those of you who forgot about the crusades and Hitler.
Anyway, by now, if you are still reading this you may be monitored by our own government for reading my radical, yet somehow, fundamental viewpoints. You might as well continue...
Anyway, here's the end of this thought. Really, i mean it. Let's start referring to those idiots who protest at military funerals as Radical Christian Fundamentalist. Then let's widen down the definition of Radical Christian Fundamentalist to more and more groups of people. Then Radical +Religion+Fundamentalist will work it's way out of vernacular.
I think it's a great idea. But it's only my opinion.
thanks for reading, be back soon.
4 comments:
I would like to be called a Radical Mortgage Fundamentalist. Because I'm radical...and I put the fun in fundamental...
Wow, that's a mouthfull! So what's so funamental about being Radical? Isn't being Rad something a California Surfing does? That's a big fricken door you opened.
Mark
I agree. Let's not forget about the crusades and what REALLY happened. Thomas F. Madden who is an associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University wrote this...
"Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variation on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already by said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."
If you would like to read more about what he wrote here is the link...
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4461
On a final note. Hitler was not a christian. Here is another link if you would like to look at that too...
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
Post a Comment