It’s possible to watch several videos on the internet, mainly in social networks, advocating religious positions. There´s one, in particular, that tries to provide a defense of Islam as a peaceful religion (and, so far, I’m not arguing otherwise), stating that the word “jihad” is only 41 times written in the Qur’an, while the words “mercy”, “peace” and “compassion” are mentioned 355 times.
Unfortunately, this video is nothing but propaganda. It’s just a tool seeking to justify Islamic terrorism and to radicalize more people.
How many times is the word “jihad” written in the Qur’an is irrelevant. Ideally, it should never be mentioned, but arguing that Islam is a peaceful religion only because “jihad” is three times less mentioned than “mercy”, “peace” and “compassion” it’s a fallacy. And why?
The Qur’an isn’t the only source of religious law to Muslims. The Sunnah, the Hadith, the Fatwa also are mandatory and Muslims are required to obey them. As such, considering these other sources of Muslim law, one must ask how many times is the word “jihad” written on the Sunnah, on the Hadith and on the fatwa(s)?
A reference to Muhammad’s life and the writing of the Qur’an has to be made because both are inseparable. We know that Muhammad lived in Mecca, where he was born, and then emigrated to Medina (June 622). Mohammad wrote suras in both cities. However, there’s a huge difference between these suras, both in form and in content or substance.
In Meccan suras, Mohammed respects the Bible. Yet, in the Medinan suras, one can observe a deflection of Mohammed’s attitude because there are numerous passages that warn Muslims to avoid the Jews and Christians. Moreover, while Meccan passages generally speak to the prophet himself or to the people, the Medinan passages are quite often addressed to his followers. And we also know that Meccan suras were overturned by the more recent suras (Medina) changing the Qur’an’s core message.
Islam may even be a peaceful religion. But, only for the faithful. At least, in principle (notwithstanding the pattern of behavior show otherwise). To everyone else, it’s intransigent and intolerant. And the Qur’an is quite clear about that!
The Qur’an can determine the conduct of Muslims, but who chooses the path to Allah are Muslims themselves. This can, eventually, represent another possibility. Nonetheless, the probability is low.
In Islam there’s no real separation between state and religion. Additionally, most people tend to forget that, unlike the other two main religions, the Qur’an (as well as the Sunnah, the Hadith, the Fatwa) doesn’t only regulate religion and religious behavior. No. All aspects of life in society, including the juridical level, are regulated by them.
That said, one doubt remains. Can Muslims coexist with other faiths? Can Muslims live in western countries?
P.S. – I’ve read: The Shruti, The Tripiṭaka, The Hebrew Bible, The Talmud, The Christian Bible, The Dao de Jing, The Analects of Confucius, The Qur’an, The Guru Granth Sahib and the Zend Avesta.
I’m not saying that I’m an expert in these holy books, but, at least, I read them.
I know what are alternate realities or parallel universes. But, “alternative facts”? What the hell are “alternative facts” supposed to be?
Should we prepare ourselves for a new order? “The” Real New Order! Where reality is fiction and “alternative facts” constitute the only valid way to understand the world or to be part of it?
Or are we just reliving the past? Does anyone remember the Second Red Scare, the troubled period better known as McCarthyism, that plagued the United States of America from 1950 to 1957? McCarthyism, defined as “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism”, and which still represents today an undeniable regression in terms of civil liberties and individual rights, began to wither away due to the courage and posture of several persons, including journalist Edward R. Murrow, who, at the time, stated: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.”
Trump is in open war with the press. But not only. Trump confronts and discards all those who disagree with him. Trump is not available to the plurality of opinions. Hence, he prefers twitter, where there is no dialogue, but rather a monologue. Although this behavior is not new to Trump, the truth is that it became more pronounced since the announcement of his candidacy for the presidency of the United States and that, after his election, it seems that it will be established as a norm of conduct.
Will Trumpism have the same consequences of McCarthyism? The question is pertinent. Unquestionably, both practices of unfounded accusations and demagogic offenses against the character of opponents, whether political or not, are visible. In addition, we have to remember that times are different and that the breadth of individual freedoms and of the civic rights was considerably limited with the Patriot Act. Finally, as we are not seeing the execution of a planned strategy but rather the application of a distorted way of understanding democracy, and considering the fractured posture of “either with me or against me” or “leave, or you will be expelled”, trumpism, and its rules, does not augur a good future to the American democracy.
Negative circumstances which represented significant social setbacks and that were overcome in the past now seem to be rising from the grave. Compared with the populism that is now being asserted, the communism of the 1950s appears as a lesser threat. Finally, as if populism were no longer dangerous, elite populism, practiced and endorsed by Trump, contains in itself the seeds of even more harmful political and societal effects.
There is indeed a tendency for the repetition of certain historical cycles. I hope that advocates of plurality and difference of opinion will not fade away, that the press can persist, and that the truth will not vanish.
Only in this way can the definitive establishment of the corpocracy be averted. Not the one considered by Derber, Sachs, or Winters, among others, but rather a distorted oligarchy who would be nothing more than the capitalist version of Trotsky’s vision.
One thing is for sure. Trumpism is not an “alternative fact.” It’s both real and dangerous.
P.S. – Make no mistake. Trump is anything but a Republican. Trump is an egocentric narcissist devoid of moral principles.
Interferências do homem na Ciência e na Religião
(Man interferences in Science and Religion)
Citar um único versículo do Corão não implica que o mesmo contenha toda a sua mensagem.
Quem tiver o mínimo de conhecimento sobre o islão sabe que a ideologia e lei islâmica deriva de duas fontes primárias: o Corão e a Sunna!
Para além disso, qual é a diferença entre os versículos de Meca e de Medina?
Quote a single Quranic verse does not mean that it contains all of Qur’an message.
Those who have a minimum knowledge about Islam know that Islamic ideology and law arise from two primary sources: the Qur’an and the Sunna.
Furthermore, what is the difference between the verses of Mecca and of Medina?