Rant Back

Monday, 18 January 2010

Izzie, Izzie

Izzie: I don't see anything wrong with being a moderate Muslim. For starters, there's enough evidence from Quran and Sunnah that teach us to be moderate plus balanced. As for an Islamic state, there are no defined, clear injunctions towards Darul Islam... Scholars have differed greatly on that issue.. As for apostates, there's also enough evidence that harmless apostates should not be killed. One day when I'm not busy I'll make a video or a blog entry about it insha Allah. I'm a moderate Muslim, and I'm fine with it. I believe in the mercy of God while at the same time I strive to be better morally and spiritually. No one's perfect right? if anyone goes too extreme in religion, he/she can be destroyed. As for Hell and Heaven, yes I do believe in them. There's a minority opinion that says punishment of hell is not eternal, and I will someday research more about that. I'm no scholar anyway. Islamically, it is wrong to attack places of worship if you refer to Muhammad pbuh's covenant with the christians. it is haram to attack any place of worship but whatever. people are assholes, deal with it. But your argument against Allah's name is sooooo typical, I've heard it so many times before by Christian apologists and it's been refuted.*rolls eyes*

I'm afraid Izzie's reply is a bit... Vague. There's claim of there being evidence, but no evidence is presented. There's claim of refutation, but no refutation is presented.

If you think my argument is typical, then really, does it have anything to do with the validity of the argument? Common use of the argument, or the typical nature of the argument does not make it less valid. The theory of gravity is pretty much the common explanation people use to explain things from falling apples to ocean tides, but the fact that it's now a typical explanation does not make it less valid.

Of course, let's try and use your logic here:

A: "You know, after centuries of advancements in Chemistry and Physics, it has been theorised that water has the formula H2O."
Izzie: *Yawn*. That's such a typical explanation. And it's been refuted. *rolls eyes*

And what of this refutation about the word "Allah" not being exclusive to Islam? Please, give me details. I'd like to hear it. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

Izzie is being a tease here. "People's not sure about that one... There's a group that says the opposite... I don't see anything wrong..." It sounds like an apologist with no self-esteem even. There's also quite a few statements of belief, with no attempt to justify said beliefs.

And please, if it's going to be a long reply, reply to the comment section.

The Word of God

If you haven't heard, there is a controversy in Malaysia about the use of the word "Allah" by a Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia in their publication called the Herald. You can read it here (one link was provided on the cBox by Reader):

(The Mainichi Daily News) Malaysian church fire-bombed amidst "Allah dispute
(AFP) Malaysia church attacks 'minor aberration': PM
(The Economist) Malaysia's Burning Churches: In God's Name?
(Mysinchew.com) Govt. Wrong On All Counts
(The Times) Attacks after Malaysian court rules Christians can worship Allah
(Reuters) Malaysia church torched amid Allah row
(BBC) Malaysia church attacks continue in use of 'Allah' row

Now I would think there are no justifications for these acts of violence. None. Violence towards a party that has not acted violent against you is simply not justifiable.

There's also the matter of why some Muslims are acting out so violently. Put simply, the violence is a part of the ongoing protests against the overturning of the ban of the word "Allah" in a Roman Catholic publication. Now this is where things get stupid.

What a lot of people are claiming is that "Allah" is exclusive for Islam. But it's actually quite conclusive that it's not.

If you know your Islamic history, then you'd know that the word "Allah" was used to refer to God even before the time of Islam. Remember Muhammad's father? His name was Abdullah, i.e. Slave of Allah. His name referred to Allah even before Muhammad was even born.

Allah in pre-Islamic times referred to the supreme deity, but wasn't the 'wahid', or the one. He had sons and daughters. Again, open that Sejarah textbook. Uzza, Manat and Lat? Those 'idols' were Allah's daughters in pre-Islamic times. Heck, the word Allah comes from Al-Ilah, meaning the god. There's even corresponding equals in Aramaic (Elaha) and Syriac (Alaha).

In Arabic countries, the Christians and the Jews use the word "Allah" to refer to their God, because in Arabic, it simply means God. It's not exclusive to Islam. Even in Indonesia, Christians use the word Allah without any repercussions. In Malta, where the population is almost entirely Roman Catholic, the word for God is "Allah."

Let's say, just for argument's sake, that Allah is indeed exclusive to Islam (which it isn't). Bear with me here.

Is that still reason enough to attack places of worship?

It almost makes me want to scream out, "THEN COPYRIGHT IT, YOU WHINING FUCKERS." Of course with a word in such common use and used for thousands of thousands of years can't really be copyrighted anymore. So, my response would simply be, "tough luck."

Tough luck that a Christian publication wants to use a word that wasn't exlusive to Islam in the first place. Sure, now it's very much tied to Islam, and that is the first religion people think about when the Allah is mentioned, but what about Malta, or Indonesia or in Arab countries where such exclusivity does not exist?

Of course it doesn't really help with the message "Islam is a religion of peace," does it? Oh, but there'll be people who'll say, "but hey, it's only the minority being violent."

Yes, true. But the more disturbing fact is that even the supposedly moderate Muslims talk about being persecuted, or that Muslims have to unite to fight against the common enemy i.e. non-Muslims. You see supposedly moderate Muslims nodding when religious speakers speak of a holy war against Jews and non-Muslims. It's quite worrying, to be honest. Some of my friends have supported the ban of the word "Allah," which is quite bad in itself. What is worse is that they also feel the violent attacks are justified, i.e. the Christians had it coming.

What the fuck?

The logic is that the Christians should not have provoked the Muslims. What, are Christians expected to expect that Muslims will be protesting so viciously and so horrifically? Here it is. Muslims aren't violent, but don't be surprised if we burn your churches when you insult our religion. How is that not a paradoxical claim?

This is also the justification used to explain the axe attack on one of the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad a few years back. Muslims are a peaceful bunch, but don't expect us not to come at you with an axe and send death threats when you draw a cartoon about our prophet?

It's not just the people who commit the attacks, it's the people who says either that the attacks were justifiable, or that the victims had it coming to them. Despicable acts should be condemned by anyone, and not be seen as "the proper response" or "predictable, it's the victim's fault."