"The Muslim Problem..."

Can Muslims be Good Americans? This was the headline to an 'Article' in the January 2008 issue of the Central Christian Observer. It's emphatic conclusion: No. Why? apparently because Muslims aren't Christians.

The 'article', in fact, is an email forward that has been in circulation since late 2005/ early 2006 according to Snopes.com, a site that along with debunking email forwards (i.e. Mr Rogers was a Sniper during Vietnam), also attempts to catalogue email forwards (and their contents) and their origins. The 'article' was published by Editor Joanne Walker, after it was forwarded to her by both both J. Parks, and D. Robinson, two members of Central Christian Church and two men whom she "respects greatly, and wouldn't send [her] anything false". This was the extent of the fact checking (a term that had to be explained to Ms. Walker) process.

The article was unedited. Walker claims that she, as editor, does not have the authority to edit articles.

The article poses the question 'Can Muslism be Good Americans?'

The follows with this:

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no.
Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no.
Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no.
Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no.
Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

It then ends with "If you find yourself in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand what we are up against, the better it will be for our country. The war is bigger than we know.(emphasis theirs)

An entire book could be written about this situation. First, the growing problem of some Christians to believe everything that hits their inbox. This problem isn't limited to Christians - otherwise sites like Snopes.com wouldn't exist - the problem however is definitely more of a detriment to the Christian faith however. If people want to believe that LIttle Mikey from the Life commercial died from a violent Pop Rocks + Diet coke explosion, or that Charles Manson had in his youth audtioned for the Monkees, nobody is really hurt. Perhaps a few folks are a little dumber, but not hurt.

Email Forward theology is on the rise. The Religion section on Snopes.com has over 40 emails catalogued (including one about former Sr. Pastor of Central, Joe Wright's prayer before the Kansas Legislature). This does not count all of the conservative/christian/political emails found in the politics section. 8 of the entires are marked true, or partially true. 2 are of indeterminate origin or veracity. 3 of undetermined or ambiguous veracity. The rest are false. George W. Bush took a half hour off from glad-handing supporters at a 'thank you' dinner to witness for Christ to a teenage boy? False. NASA scientists discovered a lost day in time. [The Day in the Bible when the Sun stood still]. False. By proclamation of Governor George W. Bush, 10 June 2000 was 'Jesus Day' in Texas.............. True. Look it up.

As Christians, pride is taken in our source of all knowledge and Truth. It seems, by either gullibility or sheer laziness, this sacred acceptance has been placed on emails forwarded to us by those we "respect greatly".

The second conclusion, is that a hidden racism/religious persecution towards people of the Muslim faith exists more than I thought in America. Or at least in Wichita, KS. Here are a few quotes from my conversation with editor Joanne Walker:

"These Asians have mosques and shrines and statues and things and it just doesn't feel right, because we were supposed to be a Christian nation."

"The Muslim problem is an issue not just in America but the world"

"They keep making their schools and people just feel like the enemy is growing from within."

But enough with her.

Let's move on to the 'Article' itself. There are two glaring problems:

1. Inaccuracies
2. Broken Logic/Rhetoric

Inaccuracies
----------

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic faith. Muslims believe they pray to the same God that Jews and Christians do - the God of Abraham - but that he listens to only them due to their belief in Mohammed as prophet. 'Allah' is not a NAME of God - i.e. Zeus or Luna (the roman moon god), but rather the Arabic word FOR God. If I was a Christian in Saudi Arabia, I'd call God 'Allah'.

Scripturally - no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Not completely true. Some sects like the Shia, do not hold "allegiance" the five pillars.

Politically - no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Mullah is a Persian term, i.e. Iran, quite akin to the jewish word, 'Rabbi'. Only in Iran do people legally have to submit to the mullah regime. Wikipedia states:

"The term is most often applied to Shi'i clerics, as Shi'a Islam is the predominant tradition in Iran. However, the term is very common in Urdu, spoken throughout northern India, and it is used throughout the Indian subcontinent for any Muslim clergy, Sunni or Shi'a. Muslim clergy in Russia and other former Soviet republics are also referred to as mullahs, regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shi'a.

The term is seldom used in Arabic-speaking areas, where its nearest equivalent is shaykh (implying formal Islamic training), imam (prayer leader; not to be confused with the Imams of the Shiite world), or `ālim (plural `ūlamā') (scholar; see ulema). In the Sunni world, the concept of "cleric" is of limited usefulness, as authority in the religious system is relatively decentralized.

The term is frequently used in English, although English-speaking Muslim clergy rarely call themselves mullahs. It was adopted from Urdu by the British rulers of India and subsequently came into more widespread use.

Mullahs have frequently been involved in politics, but only recently have they actually taken power. Islamists seized power in Iran in 1979, and later, in Afghanistan under the Taliban"

Philosophically - no.
Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Tell that to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, one of our biggest supporters in post Invasion iraq. A FOX News article, claiming him to be 'Iraq's Most Influential Leader'. Here's an Expert.

"Al-Sistani struck again this week. His target: a provision in the new plan to have a legislature, to be elected in regional caucuses, select a transitional government that would hold power until democratic elections by the end of 2005.

According to two members of the Governing Council who met with al-Sistani this week, the cleric prefers that the legislature be elected in a general, nationwide vote, not through caucuses."

A high Muslim cleric trying to institute a general election for legislature rather than caucuses.

...Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic

Tell that to Turkey, Indonesia, Albania, Niger, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

#47 الودود 'Al-Wadud' "The Loving, The Kind One"

Broken Logic/Rhetoric
-----------------

Here is where this "article" really breaks down.

The article compares one part of the Group, by using standard from another part of the Group. Is A a good B based on C. Correct logic would be is A a good B based on B as a whole.

It's like saying "Is an apple a good fruit? No Because bananas have peels that keep them protected from...." Examples can simply be found in the headers:

Theologically
Scripturally
Religiously
Spiritually

These have nothing to do with being a good American, but rather being a good Christian (though Joanne Walker would like you to believe they are synonymous.) In fact, the logic works to proves that Christians or Jews can be good Americans:

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Christians Allegiance is to Christ.

Religiously - no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Jesus said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one can get to the father except through me".

Geographically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Jews and some Christians have an allegiance to Israel.

And so on.

The problem with 'articles' like this, is that the only purpose they seem to serve is to inflame an already sensitive relationship between Christians and Muslim. Incorrect information coupled with a 'call to arms' attitude, amplify a great mistrust, and lack of understanding love from Christians.

There 'war' referred to in the 'article' is not with muslims, but those in the great minority who have perverted it's teachings, the same war being fought against the Koreshes, McVeighs, and Phelps of our faith. Simple, healthy, skepticism and common sense could have stopped this Article from being published, but unfortunately it seems some Christians have neither.