Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Why is Islam feared?

With all the emphasis in the years since 2001 on Islam I wondered what most Americans actually know about the religion. My questions have become more prominent as emails lying about the faith of Senator Barack Obama have circulated the internet since November 2007 (at the latest) and influenced some in the Democratic nomination process.

I am not a Muslim, so my understanding is limited. I do not intend to insult any Muslims, and if my ignorance leads me to an incorrect statement I apologize. But with the results of exit polls from the West Virginia Democratic Primary revealing that some chose not to vote for Senator Obama because they feared he was Muslim, I thought something should be found out.

Islam, the name of the religion, started in the 7th century with the prophet Muhammad. The word Islam comes from Arabic and means submission or to submit to God. A Muslim, or follower of Islam, means one who submits to God. So we can see immediately that Muslims are not much different from Christians, Jews, or any other major religious group in the world today. They have a firm and devout belief in a single God.

Islam is not a fringe religion. While not as populous in America as some places in the world, Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world today. There are reports that also state it is the fastest growing religion and will in the near future have more members than found in any religion. I take from that the fact that obviously many intelligent, respected, and normal people across the globe have found this religion to be the spiritual answer they sought. These are the same people that provide healthcare for the ill, research new technologies, transport people and goods in planes and ships, farm, and generally do most any job that any person in America might do.

I want to take a moment to look at a couple of practices of Muslims that some seem to fear. One of the most well known outside of Islam may be the 5 prayers that must be performed each day. All Muslims are required to pray facing Mecca 5 times a day, at specific times, unless it is impossible to do so. Thus doing surgery or fighting a fire would not be impeded by the need to pray, but watching American Idol would be (no loss there). This is no different that the high holy days among most religions, or actions observed by orthodox believers. Going to accept ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday or being home by sundown, or even going to mass on Sundays. The fact that it occurs individually – say at O’Hare Airport – is little different than those that wear a yamika or cross to me. It is following a faith and expressing that faiths belief in God. Some may be embarrassed or upset with such an expression, but that would be a personal problem of the viewer and not the Muslim.

Another practice that some cannot understand is the fasting during Ramadan. This one seems simple enough to me. It seems similar to Lent, except that it is done by all practioners and is organized as opposed to the individual sacrifices made by Catholics during this time. Again it’s an expression of faith that is not unusual or scary as some believe.

One precept of this faith is the requirement to give to the poor and needy. Again this is a requirement of all that can afford to do it and based on individual wealth. Where this is unlike the collection plates in Sunday mass, or the tithing some provide their religious institutions this is done directly by the individual Muslim as I understand it. Thus there is no centralized religious organization that has all the wealth of parishioners which is distributed at the choosing of that organization like say the Roman Catholic Church or such (which is not necessarily bad either).

A different aspect of Islam than some other religions is the Sharia laws. Many are unfamiliar with this aspect of Islam, including myself. What I can say about that is that since many Muslim nations and cities interact with the international markets and business every day it can’t be as demonized as some reports make it out to be. There is always the exception of fanatical beliefs, but I will get to that in a moment. Essentially the laws are different than our own, but so are those in England, France, Russia, Japan, and so on. Each nation has its own cultural based laws that some in America would dispute or dislike. Sharia on its surface is no different.

Of course there is the concept of Jihad. It may be one of the most misunderstood concepts for those outside of the Islamic faith. It has been made the brunt of jokes, and the point of great hate. But what is it?

I cannot say exactly what it is or what it entails beyond what I have read. That said it entail more than just a military aspect. It involves the spiritual self-perfection of a Muslim as well as exertion against non-Muslims. It can be a personal effort, or one done by certain individuals on behalf of others. In its most military aspect it might be equated with the motivations for the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. But I don’t begin to say that this is its only interpretation.

All of these things are neither new to the world nor a danger in them. Long before the 20th Century Muslims have existed and interacted with the world. And had not fanatics attacked America, this nation wouldn’t care. But fanatics did.

Like in any faith there are fanatics. Those that have the most extreme views that the majority in their religion do not agree with. In the Christian faith here in America there are those that believe killing doctors that perform abortions is ok. Yet they ignore the commandment that Thou Shalt Not Murder. And this is just one example. Every religion has them. Even some would call the actions of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire a fanatical act.

Given that there are always extremists in the world, and that some will always justify a vile and despicable personal action with their belief in a particular religion, we have seen this with Islam.

So I have to wonder, given all the similarities and non-threatening aspects of Islam, why so many in America are terrified by it. Why does this one religion cause some to refuse to vote for a candidate of that perceived religion? What causes such anger?

Acts by a small group of fanatics that do not share the same belief as the majority in a religion is the answer. No different than throughout history, just this time it happened to us. It’s important to realize this, because it obscures a hard and fanatical edge of our own. Instead of fearing and hating a religion most never heard of 9 years ago, I suggest a bit more research. Because nothing is more powerful and destructive than hate fueled by ignorance.

I hope that this has helped, and opened a path for more communication.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

West Virginia and the Presidential election

So the primary race is now in West Virginia. And while it’s very early, indications are that Senator Clinton will win her 3rd state with a margin of over 20 points. That compares to Senator Obama in that he has won over a dozen states with that same margin. Thus a question comes to mind of why Senator Clinton winning with such a margin, especially when she has rarely been able to muster such a rally and of late has barely been able to accomplish a win at all.

One answer stands up among many others, and it’s an answer few have been willing to comment on though it has been a factor in this Democratic nomination process since Senator Obama announced he would run in 2007. Race. The other factor, to a far lesser degree is gender.

Let’s be honest. That is the motivating factor today, and in several of the states so far. Several commentators have mentioned that voters in West Virginia are noting that Senator Obama’s perceived religion is a factor. Perceived because they claim he is a Muslim. And Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, which can be boiled down to ‘elect the White woman not the Black man’, is also showing influence. So we see bias based on religion, gender, lies and racism hold sway with more than just a few voters in America.

And the pundits act as if they are shocked. Like the Clinton campaign never promoted images of Senator Obama as a drug dealer, or emails claiming he is a fanatical Muslim spy, or just directly insulting him because he is African American and running for the Presidency. Obviously they seem to have forgotten all the news events I have been writing about since 2006 here.

What does it take to look at the factual evidence and see what has been done for what it is? Or is the prospect of dealing with the reality of racial prejudice, even in the most liberal party, too unsavory for White Americans to deal with?

The fact is that both Senator Clinton and Obama are virtually the same on their political views. Their proposed platforms are near mirror images of each other. Differences are slightly more than cosmetic, more points of contention for pundits and news junkies like myself than actual preferences for most Americans. Thus the 2 things that are different have been emphasized and manipulated.

The Clinton campaign has not been shy in trying to use race and gender to their advantage. Calls seeking to minimize the damage to the Democratic Party have been unheeded since back in February. And in West Virginia, a state not known for its tolerance of religion or race, the lines cannot be crossed.

Remember, this is the same state where Megan Williams was kidnapped, raped, tortured and abused for over a week. It’s the same state that avoided national attention on this case. It’s a state that has virtually eliminated coverage of protests over the handling of the case – where the 6 White criminals still have not been charged with hate crimes though race has been seen as a big factor in this case.

Am I angry over this case? Hell yes! And I have made that clear in at least a dozen posts on multiple blogs. But when a Presidential candidate that has overtly used her race as a campaign tool is winning in a landslide in West Virginia, I can’t say I am shocked or even remotely surprised.

This leads me to another question. What factor will race play in the general election?

Senator John McCain seems to be above such petty actions as using race as a tool. I believe that as a soldier that has seen combat alongside soldiers of every race in America he is not so blind. I could be wrong. But I don’t feel he will use race. And Senator Obama has clearly tried to avoid this issue as much as possible, notwithstanding the attacks and comments of former-President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, and her campaign (and the media driven insanity over the five 10 second polispeak clips of Rev. Wright from over an unknown number of years).

But race is going to be as big a factor in this election as what America will do in Iraq. It may not be spoken directly, but it will be there. And I have no doubt that many of those less bold than some in West Virginia will bring it to the fore, even if the media tried to turn a blind eye to the racial storm they have helped to build.

So can America look at 2 men for the same position and not see their race but just their qualifications? If we take our cue form the business world, the answer is no. Just count on one hand the CEO’s of major corporations in the stock market. If we go by law enforcement the answer is no. Just listen to the changes in testimony of the Sean Bell case, or the actions of the police in Philadelphia. If we look at the media in general we get an adamant no. With barely 2% of the population shown in media being non-White, and the propensity of news organizations to demonize African Americans (see my comments on the full coverage of Wesley Snipes, or Bobbie Cutts, or OJ Simpson, or Sean Taylor, or the Jena 6, or Megan Williams, or the ‘Barbie’ bank robbers of Atlanta, or Sean Bell, and I can keep going on), the position is undeniably clear.

Given all that, this election will be a landmark for many reasons. The degree and manner in which race is used. The vocalizations of citizens over race. The perceptions promoted about race in various formats. The number of people that will vote based on color, and the number that will vote based on color to make a point of one extreme or another. And of course there is the question of the issues facing America.

Now I do notice and comment on how race affects me and the nation as I see it. Of course that comes to fore in covering the Presidential election. But I am not motivated by, nor condone or agree with the use of race as a factor on who should win. I believe that America needs the best person possible to lead this nation on a path that we will not be able to alter for at least a decade or more.

While I will not shy away from race being used in the race for the Presidency, I will not advance it as a reason. As I have noted at the beginning of covering this election, my goal is getting the best President elected. That is still my focus. With Senator Clinton all but out of the election my focus is now on the 2 remaining candidates. Both have been individuals that I favor. I will soon make my own decision on which I feel is best. I will make that decision known. But I will not let that color my coverage, as best as I am able.

Remember, we as citizens have an obligation to our nation. That obligation is to vote and pick the best person possible for our future. We only get one vote, so make it count. Because one it’s done we can’t go back.

Labels: , , , , , ,



Ask for ad rates
Ask for ad rates