A new bandage on an ever-growing problem

Sallams All,


I read an article in the Orlando Sentinel recently which made my blood boil so much, I decided to write about it. Here is the introduction. I have quoted portions of the article with my comments below the quotations.

The leader of the movement to ban same-sex marriage in Florida now wants to make
it harder and more expensive for heterosexual couples to marry — and divorce.

Just as he says gay unions would undercut the institution of marriage, John Stemberger
thinks the casual way people get married and the ease by which they can divorce threatens
the foundation of society. His goal is to change that.


"Harder to get in and harder to get out," said Stemberger, head of the Orlando-based
Florida Family Policy Council.

You are going to make marriage harder to institute because of high divorce rates? Will that really solve anything? Will that tell people "hey, it is going to be harder for me to marry, so I will do it more than sleep around and have bastard children"?

Stemberger's "Strong Marriages Campaign" is promoting a Premarital Preparation bill
before the Florida Legislature that would add $100 to the state's marriage-license
fee. Those who attend eight hours of premarital counseling would get their money
back.

Ahh yes, and this is how you will do it. Tack on $100 to the fee, and boom! everything is solved. I do not see your logic here, Stemberger. In fact, I believe all you are doing is snagging more money from couples who wish to marry. Don't you understand that people are avoiding marriage and then having bastard children? Now you want to charge them $100 extra to marry. I really think you have your philosophy backwards.

Money not returned to couples would go into a Marriage Education Trust Fund, which
would provide grants to premarital counseling groups.

Premarital counseling! Now let me ask you this, oh saint. Would most people go to the counsiling to get their money back, or will they go to genuinely learn about how to keep a marriage? And what will you teach them at the sessions, that sex is bad for you? Or will you tell them, oh senator, that even though they're married, it's a good idea to abstain from sex? That "premarital counsiling" phrase is too vague for my liking.

Part of Stemberger's selling point in the bill to raise the requirements for marriage
is that divorce is costly for the state because it results in poverty programs for
households headed by single women. A 10percent reduction of Florida's 86,000 divorces
a year would save the state $100 million a year, he said.

If divorce is costly for the state, can you stop it by preventing people from marrying? Yes, you can. In other words, oh senator, you are advocating less marriages! The only people who can marry are those who have the extra $100 to dish out, and are willing to go to counseling. This will debase the importance of long-lasting marriages, my lawmaker, because the success of marriages will be attributed to "help" received before marriages, not a couple's intellectual abilities, and abilities to sort problems. You seem to be another way for psychiatry to infest the human mind--"you can only be happy if we drug you; and you can only be successful in marriage if we counsel you."

Critics contend Stemberger is using the state's budget crunch to push a conservative
Christian religious ideology disguised as public policy. Most children living in
poverty are not the products of divorce but of unwed mothers, said Judith Stacey,
a sociology professor at New York University.

Agreed. Thank you Sociology! Did you hear that, oh lawmaker, "unwed mothers." Why unwed mothers? Because people like to sleep around and not marry, that's why. Now you are making it even harder to get married.

"Cohabitation and marriage are not equal," said Live the Life founder Richard Albertson.


"The institution of marriage is so much better than cohabitation."

Stemberger said Live the Life and 12 similar "community marriage initiatives" in
the state have proven to reduce divorce. Those types of organizations would be among
those eligible for state funding, Stemberger said.

I do agree with you on this one, lawmaker; still, your means of repair are off the mark, and here is why:

Other states have enacted similar laws to encourage premarital counseling. A law
passed by Minnesota seven years ago has increased the number of couples receiving
premarital counseling from 24 percent to 36 percent. But the majority would still
rather pay the higher fees for a marriage license than go through the required 12
hours of marriage counseling.

Just what I predicted earlier. People either avoid it, or go there just to get their money back. Again I ask you, will making premarital counsiling mandatory do any good at all? According to human mentality, probably not.

Stacey argues that making divorce harder doesn't make marriage better. And making
marriage more expensive hurts those who have the lowest marriage rates to begin with:


the poor.

"One hundred dollars if you are poor is different than $100 if you are rich," she
said. "If you make it harder to get married, you will have more unmarried people.
And they will become poorer faster."

Again, I agree with the sociologist. Hats off to you, ma'm.

You have the right idea, lawmaker, but you are going about it incorrectly. Firstly, because we live in a liberal country, divorce is very easy; I agree with you on that. However, the problem (as we saw above) is mainly unwed mothers. People are not marrying anyway.

Secondly, here is my alternative to your proposal. After a couple is married (at the normal rate,) they have the option to go for marriage counseling. When they do this, they will be paid a reasonable amount--let us say $100 to attend the sessions. Next, if they divorce, they return that money to the state. If they do not, the collection agencies will be notified. This way, divorce is free, but with an indirect penalty. Also, keep in mind that I am not advocating premarital counsiling; I am advocating counsiling after the couple is married, since this is a more suitable time (they will have gotten to know each other somewhat well by then, and can sort their differences out from the beginning instead of at the beginning of the beginning.): " And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may
find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there
are signs in this for a people who reflect" (The Holy Quran 30:21).


Ma'a sallamah,


Munawar

The Middle East: Foes Of The Friends

Before this document is read, you will be able to make better sense of it if you watch the

documentary around which this document is based. Links are provided below:

1. Part I
   
2. Part II
   
3. Part III-I
   
4. Part III-II
   
5. Part IV
   
6. Part V
   

Contents

1. Introduction
   
2. Definitions
   
   
   
   1. Moderate Islam
      
   2. Radical Islam
      
   
   
3. Flaws in the Documentary
   
   
   
   1. Suicide
      
   2. Not Enough Airtime
      
   
   
4. Actual Islam
   
   
   
   1. Jihad
      
   
   
5. False Islam
   
6. Final Remarks
   
7. References
   

Introduction

In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful.



On 02/04/2007, Fox News aired an hour long segment entitled "Radical Islam: Terror in Its

Own Words" by E.D. Hill. The documentary, despite appearing to be composed well, had many

flaws. For instance, it wrongly labeled Muslims as killers ("radical") and non-killers

("moderate.") In addition, it failed to point out that although suicide bombing does occur

by those who claim to be Muslim, suicide is forbidden in Islam. Lastly, the documentary

failed to give the so-called "Moderate Muslim" more than two minutes of airtime to explain

his response, while contributing roughly fifty-six minutes to the degradation of the name of

Islam by using the Middle East as its potent example.

In the documentary, Muslims were repeatedly accused of not speaking out. The Muslim who

was interviewed and who was asked to give his thoughts on the Middle East for two minutes

said exactly why this is so: Muslims are not getting airtime. This fact was made clear by

the documentary itself. Not only was the Muslim given no more than two minutes, the

interviewer was constantly arguing with him, preventing him from finishing what he had to

say. The specific flaws of the documentary will be discussed at their appropriate times;

however, you will first be acquainted with the documentary's definition of "radical" and

"moderate" Islam.

Definitions

Moderate Islam

The documentary defines moderate Islam as Islam that teaches peace; an Islam that does not

enjoin killing, suicide bombing, or threats against the United States. Specifically,

Moderate Muslims are those living in the West.

Radical Islam

The documentary defines Radical Muslims as those in the Middle East: the suicide bombers,

those who kill, and those who pose threats against the United States. A man towards the

beginning of the documentary states that the very ideology of Jihad promotes killing. This

is not true, as will be discussed later. In order to begin the discussion, you must be

acquainted with some of Islam's basic teachings.

Flaws in the Documentary

As has been mentioned previously, several notions about Islam presented in the documentary

are false. Often times, one is told that suicide is condemned in Islam, but is not given

proof of this; one is told that killing is condemned in Islam, but is not given proof of

this. Mere words from one's mouth do not suffice to prove to the average opponent that Islam

does condemn suicide and killing; for this reason, explanations and relevant verses from the

Holy Quran have been provided to remove all doubt from your mind. Unfortunately, the

documentary lacked commentary on this aspect, effectively showing Islam as a religion of

terrorist activity, whether that Islam was radical or moderate becoming less significant as

the video progressed.

Suicide

Recall the documentary's definition of Radical Islam: mere Islam, but an Islam which teaches

that suicide bombing is the way to Allah. This notion is false, and is the basis for many

misconceptions about Islam since September 11, 2001. Many use the martyrdom of Imam Hussein

(S.A.) of the Shiah sect as an example to back up the righteousness of suicide bombing,

claiming that Hussein (S.A.) committed suicide. In reality, he did not commit suicide; he

was killed. In addition, Hussein (S.A.) did not cause others to die with him; their deaths

were voluntary, and were not performed by themselves. When this argument is presented,

suicide bombing loses its ground in two ways:

1. When a suicide bomber lights a bomb, he commits suicide, something which is highly
   
   condemned time and again in the Quran.
   
2. When a suicide bomber blows himself up, he kills several people around him; many of whom
   
   are innocent civilians.
   

you may now argue that the Quran does not condemn suicide. Consider, then, verse 2:195,

which reads as follows:

And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own

hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good.

Verses 4:29-30 read as follows:

O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely,

except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah

is Merciful to you.


And whoever does this aggressively and unjustly, We will soon cast him into fire; and this

is easy to Allah.

Take a look at verses 2:84-85

And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you

shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise
while you witnessed.


Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes,

backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding
the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their

very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe
in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you

as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on
the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah

is not at all heedless of what you do.

Consider what verses 2:84-85 tell the believers. (A) The shedding of blood of other human

beings is not lawful; (B) People should not be driven out of cities if they are your own

people (viz. Muslims should not expel Muslims); and (C) Do not believe in one part of the

Quran while ignoring the rest of it. By the three verses mentioned, the Islamic standpoint

on the killing of others during a suicide bomb becomes quite clear: it is condemned greatly.

Focus will now be shifted briefly to a flaw in the documentary which does not have to do

with the misunderstanding of Islam, but rather with the way one of the interviews was

handled.

Not Enough Airtime

Towards the end of the documentary, Hill interviews who she calls a "Moderate Muslim." She

asks him for his views on the situation in the Middle East. From the beginning of the

interview, the viewer can easily tell that Hill is looking for an argument. Not only does

she give the interviewee roughly two minutes to share his views, she does not let him finish

his thought: she is constantly arguing with him. Whether Hill meant for the argument between

her and the interviewee to communicate the message that Hill had a specific goal--a goal to

point a finger at Islam, one may never know unless they ask her directly; however, this did

appear to be her purpose by her attitude. The Imam made an excellent point when he stated

that Muslims are not getting the airtime they deserve; this was one of those examples. If

anything, Hill should have let him explain what he was going to say instead of interrupting

him half way through his sentences and handing him several videos to watch.

Through all the cut offs by Hill, the average viewer may have failed to notice a fine

point made by the interviewee, one which Hill skillfully ignored. He stated that the suicide

bombing is purely a political act, and has nothing to do with Islam. To understand the

interviewee's comment, one must consider the attack on the United States, which is believed

by many to have started the uproar experienced today.

A common belief is that Iraq was involved in 9/11/2001; however, this is not true.

Although Al-Qaeda may have been involved, Iraq had no political gain. Instead, it was more

likely the people from Palestine; several sources point in different directions, so there is

still much speculation. Nonetheless, if indeed Palestine played a role, one must understand

Palestine's position for this possibility to bare any significance on the political nature

of the assault.

Israel was given to the Jews by the United States after the Holocaust. Since then, Israel

invaded Palestine; and the destruction continues till today, according to
href="http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/442.shtml">ei: Israel invades Gaza: "Operation

Summer Rain". Naturally, Palestine would be angry at the United States because the US is

allies with Israel, Palestine's enemy. Because of this, Palestine decides to take revenge on

the US for giving Israel its firepower and continuing to support the country even though it

went outside of its boundaries. Considering this, Palestine's action was purely political,

as the interviewee in Hill's interview stated.

Considering all of the information given above, you will now be presented with the actual

definition of Islam.

Actual Islam

The documentary, although shining light on the roots of terrorism, failed to point out that

Islam had no factor in suicide bombing, or the killing of US soldiers. Instead, Islam was

divided in to two categories: moderate and radical. These categories, however, are illogical

and do not follow the Islamic trend in the least.

A Muslim who follows Islam to its fullest--from the five daily prayers to fasting to

being mindful with whom he or she converses on account of whether that person is lawful for

him or her--is a "extreme Muslim." Notice that the word "radical" was not used. This is

because there is no definition of "radical Islam." Radical means beyond the normal

guidelines, and Islam beyond the normal guidelines is in fact not Islam at all. Here,

"beyond the normal guidelines" refers to suicide bombing, and killing other people

mercilessly, two acts which are condemned and looked down upon by the teachings of Islam, as

has been shown to you above. Every Muslim's goal is to become an extreme (or true) Muslim,

because at that point they are following the Quran to its fullest. Recall verse 2:85:
"… Do you then believe
in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? …" This verse clearly is a wake up call

to Muslims.

Owing to verse 2:85, the term "moderate Muslim" is a label that Muslims do not wish to

carry--that is, true Muslims do not wish to carry. A moderate Muslim is one who does just

what verse 2:85 condemns: he attends the Mosque but does not pray; he consumes alcohol but

still counts himself up righteous; and he turns his back on helping people by stating "If

only I won the lottery…" yet he counts himself good-hearted because he recites the Quran at

the Mosque. Chapter 107 of the Quran declares:

So woe to the praying ones,

Who are unmindful of their prayers,

Who do (good) to be seen,

And withhold the necessaries of life.

(4-7).

Considering the verses presented above, moderate Muslims would fall under the category of

false Muslims, those that cannot be called Muslims at all. Therefore, there still remains

two types of Muslims, but not in the sense in which Hill sees them (as radical and

moderate.)

1. Striving Muslims: These are those who pray in good faith; who give to the poor without
   
   wishing they won the lottery; who do not consume alcohol; and who avoid sin where ever they
   
   can. In essence, these are the Muslims who are still striving to be spiritually successful.
   
   Although they do not follow every teaching of the Quran, they are still Muslims because they
   
   are attempting to reach the goal of ultimate success.
   
2. True Muslims: These are those who have fully accepted the will of Allah (God); who are
   
   free from sin; who do not eat unless their neighbors have eaten. These are the Muslims to
   
   whom the former type look up to as role models.

Notice that there was no mention of suicide bombing or killing. No matter how extremely one

follows Islam, he or she is not permitted to kill another (except in self-defense), or

commit suicide. As soon as he or she does this, he or she is no longer a Muslim, according

to verse 2:195, which has been quoted elsewhere. Suicide cannot even be labeled as Jihad.

Jihad

Towards the beginning of Hill's documentary, a man stated that the very ideology of Jihad is

to kill those who do not follow Islam. There are several problems with this belief.

Firstly, one must establish the meaning of Jihad. Jihad means a struggle (not holy war).

There are two types of this struggle:

1. The war against one's self: This type of Jihad refers to one's struggle against his or
   
   her own desires for unlawful things. Spiritually inclined persons practice Jihad every day,
   
   whether they realize it or not (viz. resisting gambling, resisting alcohol, Etc.)
   
   (Philosophy Of Islam 143).
   
2. Holy War: This type of Jihad is the physical Jihad performed with weapons; it is this
   
   Jihad that has been used as an excuse for suicide bombing. There are strict guidelines by
   
   which this Jihad is performed, however, and none of them are left standing when one blows
   
   himself up in a crowded area. The most important of these guidelines is Muslims are only
   
   permitted to fight when "… they [the non-Muslims] start fighting first, when they violate
   
   the privacy of Muslims, expel them from their homes, or hinder them from conveying the
   
   message of Islam"
   href="http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/10/article02_a.shtml">
   
   [IslamOnline - Contemporary Section].
   

Al-Qaeda flew planes in to the United States World Trade Center when they had no reason to,

except anger. The US did not wage war upon them, and did not prevent them from spreading the

word of Islam; therefore, the claim that the attack on the Twin Towers was an act of Jihad

is void.

False Islam

you have been shown that Islam condemns suicide, and also the killing of others; yet, these

acts occur quite frequently in the Middle East. In fact, suicide bombing is branded as

martyrdom. Considering all of the verses and information presented above, one can now see

why many Muslims do not support those claims: suicide bombing is not martyrdom because it

violates one of the basic principles of Islam; and killing other human beings is also

unlawful (except in self-defense). With all these facts in mind, the arguments of the Middle

East fall short of solid ground on which they may stand.

Final Remarks

Therefore, Ms. Hill, I urge you to carefully rethink your documentary, and maybe talking to

someone who grew up in the West and studies the religion for what it really is may be

beneficial to you. You will fight us, so we will fight you, and in the middle we will clash.

In the end, surely Islam will prevail over the ones who are sensoring it because they are

uncomfortable that Christianity is losing its footing; even though we can all agree that

"Missionary work is performed mostly in exchange for financial and material remuneration"

(Philosophy Of Islam 27). This is all a ploy by the Pope and his Catholic friends.

You are now being seen right through because your political-religious wavering did not help

humanity. Today, society is looking for answers, and getting it through Islam (Philosophy

Of Islam 28). Where is the mention of your crusades when you talk about "radical

islamists" blowing up buildings? Where is your discussion of Timathy Mcvay's destruction of

a government building in the 90s? You seem to be so sure of yourselves, but yet you have

become so institutionalized that the Pope is an untouchable--you are to talk to his bishops.

Did Christianity come with Jesus (peace be upon him) or after Jesus?

Your pope lives in splendor while Moses and Aaron went to visit Farrow with only pieces of

woolen clothes on their bodies and wooden sticks (Philosophy Of Islam 143-44). You

will ignore the pitfalls of your own religion by focusing on debasing Islam (which helps

humanity because it tells the man and woman that you "must live respectfully and must not be

humiliated or dominated" (Philosophy Of Islam 11)); and you are teling me Jesus died

for my sins. Wrong--we are dying for each other's sins. You use this great sacrifice as an

excuse to not participate in prescribed rituals such as prayer and fasting because "Jesus

died so I don't have to do that anymore. Isn't he wonderful? Let's go drinking. Praise

Jesus!"

References

Behishti, Ayatullah Dr. Muhammad Hosayni, and Hujjatul-Islam Dr. Javad Bahonar.

Philosophy of Islam. Salt Lake City: Islamic Publications, 1982.