All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: Please God - Just tell me what to think

topic by Speedy 6/28/2002 (24:59)

reply top Melissa Morales, a Latina born in Puerto Rico, was eating in a local Mexican restaurant recently when the waiter wanted to know why she covered her head in a long black scarf. 'Eres monjita?' the Spanish-speaking waiter asked. Are you a nun? Her answer caught the waiter by surprise. No, she told him. Not a nun, a Muslim. Latinos and Islam may seem like a strange combination to most, primarily because Catholicism is so deeply embedded in Latino culture. But the combination is less unusual, believers point out, in light of the fact that beginning in the year 711, Muslims from North Africa occupied Spain for more than seven centuries. Still, the estimated 40,000 Latino Muslims in the United States remained far off the country's cultural radar until earlier this month when a Latino Muslim named Jose Padilla was accused by federal authorities of plotting with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network to detonate a radioactive 'dirty bomb' on U.S. soil. Authorities said Padilla, the Brooklyn-born son of Puerto Rican parents, was raised a Catholic, but converted to Islam. Padilla's arrest did not bring the kind of attention the small but growing number of Latino Muslims want. They are quick to defend their religion as peaceful. 'Islam is peace. Islam is not terrorism,' said Morales, 25, an elementary school teacher at the Tempe Islamic Cultural Center. There is no Latino Muslim organization in the Phoenix area, and Morales said she has encountered fewer than 50 Latino Muslims. She also wondered why Padilla's ethnicity and citizenship became an issue when John Walker Lindh's has not. Lindh is the 20-year-old American from California who converted to Islam and is accused of conspiring with Taliban forces in Afghanistan to kill fellow Americans. 'Why do we have to categorize (Padilla) because he's Latino? Why don't we do that with John Walker?' asked Morales, pointing out that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth. The world's 1 billion Muslims believe that Islam is the one true religion and that there is only one God, Allah, whose revelations revealed in the seventh century to the Prophet Mohammed are contained in Islam's sacred book, the Koran. Padilla's arrest shocked many Latino Muslims, including Juan Galvan, vice president of the national Latino American Dawah Organization. Dawah means 'the call to Allah' in Arabic, and the organization works to promote Islam to Latinos. Galvan believes the publicity over Padilla's arrest only added to negative perceptions about both Islam and Latinos. 'Islam is always associated with something negative,' said Galvan, 27, of Austin, who also heads the Texas chapter of the Latino American Dawah Organization. 'Of all the people who had to get themselves in trouble, this guy turns out to be Latino.' Islam is the nation's fastest growing religion and in many ways the reasons Latinos are converting to Islam are no different than those of others. Some, like Veronica Ramirez, 36, of Tempe and Lucy Chapa, 32, of Phoenix, were raised Roman Catholic but became disenchanted with many of Catholicism's tenets. 'I was practicing Catholicism, but in my mind there were always doubts,' Ramirez said. 'One of my questions was the Trinity. How could one person be three?' Ramirez, a native of Mexico, said a Muslim friend from Lebanon first introduced her to Islam in college. She said she was attracted to the faith's practicality. 'For every rule there is a reason. It's not just 'because,' ' Ramirez said. Chapa had never heard of Islam until she met a Muslim man while traveling in Europe seven years ago. Other Latino Muslims like Sheila Roman, 36, of Tempe and Katherine Muhammad, 30, of Phoenix converted to Islam after marrying Muslims. 'My converting was not for my husband,' said Roman, a native of Puerto Rico. 'It was by choice.' Morales, a former Pentecostal missionary, prefers to say she 'reverted' to Islam rather than converted. In fact, she said, many Latinos who embrace Islam feel that they are reclaiming their Islamic heritage, not rejecting Latino culture. 'Latino people,' she said, 'have a legacy of Islam in Spain.' In the company of each other, they often blend three cultures, greeting each other with the traditional Muslim greeting 'salaam alaykum' while conversing in Spanish and English. Why do some people need a frickin play book for life and can't handle any ambiguity? Get a life people!

reply by ... Latinos Speak ... 6/29/2002 (2:05)

reply top Visit.. aztlan.net ... ukar.org ..

reply by Decent people won't go to Hell. 6/29/2002 (10:06)

reply top I can place my faith in the ONE God........but I have a REAL problem with mankind's constant 'interpretations'on how individuals must practice that faith. I have no problem with people practicing anything as long as they don't try and shove their version down my throat. Convert,revert, who bloody cares, it is what is inside an individual that counts. A good Muslim. Jew. Christian. Hindu. Buddist is fine my me.

reply by ADAM 6/29/2002 (13:58)

reply top DECENT PEOPLE WON'T GO TO HELL!.....I HAVE GOT NEWS FOR YOU, PAL!! THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A GOOD PERSON. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS, BUT EVERYONE IS SINFUL & FALLS SHORT OF REACHING THE CREATOR! YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR WAY TO HEAVEN BY DOING GOOD, OR BEING NICE. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS: HOW GOOD SHOULD YOU BE, & BY WHAT STANDARDS, IN ORDER TO BE QUALIFIED FOR HEAVEN? ONLY BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS IT IS POSSIBLE, & NOTHING ELSE! BY FAITH BELIEVE IN HIM, ACCEPT THAT HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS & WAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD & HE IS YOUR LORD. JESUS SAID: 'I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE. NO ONE WILL COME TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.'

reply by Bob 6/29/2002 (14:42)

reply top When considering a Christian perspective on the conflict between Israel and the Arab/Muslims, we can only base our viewpoint on the Bible. Zionism is Biblical. What has today been termed 'Zionism' can be defined in many ways, but is perhaps best summarized in God's own words: 'I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.' (Leviticus 26:42 NIV) Jacob (Israel) and the land. This is the foundation for a meaningful, consistent, authentic Christian perspective of today's Middle East. Anyone who wishes to stay true to the God of the Bible must acknowledge what He has declared regarding the irrevocable, unilateral assignment of the Holy Land to the Jewish people. History itself has progressively vindicated this assignment, and will continue to do so. For Christians who support Israel, this axiom leads to another inevitable question, one that is often leveled as an accusation. If Christianity is a religion that, at its very essence, is meant to be characterized by compassion and mercy, why does a Christian not sympathize with the suffering of the Palestinian people? Insofar as the perception may exist that a Christian is unsympathetic towards these people, this is certainly a valid question. The valid answer to it, however, is not one that will be swallowed by many. It is based on facts that they do not acknowledge, because they do not acknowledge the authority of the Bible. According to that Book, the land in dispute, upon which the Palestinians wish to form a state, was granted to Israel. In order to understand the issues of justice and compassion surrounding this conflict, that fact must first be acknowledged. Only then can we examine the question of compassion. Consider this analogy: suppose I own a tract of land, several hundred acres in the mountains of Tennessee. This land was deeded to my ancestors hundreds of years ago. I had not visited it for some time, but upon arriving there I discover that a small community of people has become established there, without authorization. My return is greeted sullenly, , but comprehending the reason for their anger, and even though I am under no legal obligation to do so, I offer to sit down with the illegal residents and discuss possible arrangements whereby they might be able to stay on and live peaceably together with me. I stress that I would retain overall ownership of the property, but other than this off them full rights to live as permanent residents on my land. In response, they round on me, stone my son, stab my daughter, shoot my wife and try to blow me up. Obviously, I will then use whatever legal means available to have the evildoers among them tried and imprisoned, and would be fully within my rights to evict the rest of them from my property. If they resist, then the governing authority to which I resort will be justified in using forceful means to remove them. Even at this stage I might still be willing to offer some of them the chance to stay, on my terms. In this scenario, was my response lacking compassion? No, of course not. Though I may sympathize with their plight, the fact remains that the land is mine, and they had no right to live there. If they had not resisted, had not met my compassionate response with violence, we might have come to an arrangement by which they would have benefited fully as co-residents on the land. But if they scorned my outstretched hand, and resisted my efforts to evict them, then forcible removal by the appropriate authorities was a just course of action. Because God has granted the land to Israel, the ownership is theirs. As the owners, it is within their prerogative to determine the disposition of the land (including the West Bank), in accordance with guidelines that God has prescribed. In the Scriptures God instructs them not to treat aliens harshly, because they were also once aliens. Should this not mean that Israel should allow Palestinians to continue to live in Judea and Samaria, free from what some have erroneously described as 'oppression'? The citizens of Israel tried this approach already. They have been willing to try peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. Though many said it would not work, that the Palestinians' goal of eliminating the state of Israel had not changed, the people of Israel gave 'peace' a chance. We all know the results. Ironically, if in fact the Palestinians had been willing to peacefully coexist with Israel, they would have had a state long ago. But a Palestinian state is not God's will for the Holy Land. God's stated intention is that the regathered Israel would 'dispossess' other peoples from the land designated for them. (Isaiah 54:2-3) Modern sensibility based on so-called 'international law' finds this to be dreadful. If you have a problem with it, if you find it to be unjust and lacking compassion, then your recourse is to present your objections with the originator of the policy. Is He lacking in compassion? Of course not. There is Biblical precedent for His compassion in a situation that closely matches the present. During the initial conquest of the land by Joshua, the people of Israel were also following His directions to take the land away from others. Yet to those few inhabitants of the land who were willing to acknowledge Him, His compassion was great. The response of Rahab of Jericho is illustrative of this. 'I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. When we heard of it, our hearts melted and everyone's courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.' (Joshua 2:9-11 NIV) Unlike her compatriots, she admitted that God had given the land to Israel, (and acted accordingly), and because of this was treated kindly. If the Palestinians would likewise say 'I know that the LORD has given this land to you,' then they also would be treated kindly. But instead they combat the expressed intentions of Yahweh, and take up the banner of Allah in their struggle. They have challenged the true God of Israel to a duel by proclaiming that Israel is Muslim land. It is a challenge that God is up to. This does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to treat the Palestinians brutally. But by their own choice, the Palestinians have transformed the situation into one of armed conflict. Unfortunately, during periods of military conflict, innocent people suffer due to the errant decisions of their leadership. However, it is not only the folly of Arafat that has caused this suffering. In Gaza and the West Bank, a large percentage of the population are now in favor of the violent terror actions of Hamas and the Islamic extremists. The Palestinian people have been suffering greatly, but it is a suffering that has been self-inflicted. No one wants to see people suffering economic deprivation. But their decisions have placed them in the plight in which they now find themselves. The compassionate approach is this: to urge them to stop the pattern of deadly choices which force Israel to take forceful action, and to urge them to abandon their inevitably vain campaign for a Palestinian state. Not only are they fighting against Israel, but they are fighting against the God of Israel, which is always a losing fight.

reply by ADAM 6/29/2002 (15:18)

reply top BOB; AN EXCELLENT JOB! I AM HOPING THAT OUR MUSLEM FRIENDS, AS WELL AS OTHERS WILL READ IT & WILL TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND THIS CONFLICT. YES, IT IS THE TRUE GOD OF THE CREATION WHOM THEY ARE CHALLENGING!

reply by truth 6/29/2002 (16:28)

reply top Ethnic cleansing attended the birth of Israel but, more than 50 years later, the country is still in denial about its bloody past. Those who speak out risk their jobs. : John Pilger :30 May 2002 Behind the turbulent news from Israel, a struggle for historical truth has passed almost unnoticed outside academic circles; yet its wider significance is epic. In May 1948, more than 200 Palestinians were killed by the advancing Jewish militia in the coastal village of Tantura, south of Haifa. According to the recorded testimony of 40 witnesses, both Arab and Jewish, half the civilians were shot in a 'rampage'. The rest were marched to the beach, where the men were separated from the women and children. They were taken to a wall near the mosque where they were shot in the back of the head. The 'cleansing' of Tantura (a term used at the time) was a well-kept secret. When they were interviewed four years ago, several Palestinian witnesses said they feared for their lives if they spoke out. One survivor, who as a child witnessed the murder of his entire family in Tantura, said to the interviewer: 'But believe me, one should not mention these things. I do not want them to take revenge against us. You are going to cause us trouble... ' Trouble indeed. The researcher, a student called Teddy Katz, has had his masters degree annulled by Haifa University, even though he was awarded a top grade by the Middle Eastern department. When his research was revealed in the Israeli press, Jewish veterans of the attack on Tantura sued him for libel, and several Jewish witnesses recanted. Katz had breached the taboo of the ethnic cleansing that gave birth to Israel and which the Palestinians mourn as Nakba - the catastrophe. Without waiting for the case to come to court, the university struck Katz's name from its honour roll. Whispered to be a traitor, and under pressure from his family and friends, Katz, a devout Zionist who lived on a kibbutz, apologised. Twelve hours later, he retracted his apology. Professor Ilan Pappe is one of the few to have read all the transcripts of more than 60 hours of Katz's taping of eyewitness evidence. 'They include,' he wrote, 'horrific descriptions of executions, of the killing of fathers in front of children, of rape and torture.' He describes Katz's thesis 'as a solid and convincing piece of work whose essential validity is in no way marred by its shortcomings'. The shortcomings, he says, come down to four minor mistakes. But the importance of the Katz research is its illumination of Israel's history in terms of 'the expulsion, direct and indirect, of some 750,000 Palestinians, the systematic destruction of more than 400 villages and scores of urban neighbourhoods, as well as the perpetration of some 40 massacres of unarmed Palestinians.' Although other prominent scholars supported Katz, a silence and hostility familiar to those who break academic and political ranks in Israel descended on the case. Since the election of Ariel Sharon last year, this hostility is such that not even national heroes are forgiven. Last month, Yaffa Yarkoni, 'Israel's Vera Lynn', whose emotional, wistful songs have celebrated Zionist triumphalism from 1948 to the present day, lost her huge popularity overnight when she remarked that Israeli soldiers ought not to be writing numbers on the arms of Palestinians. 'Isn't that what the Germans did?' she asked. One newspaper headline called her an 'enemy of the people'; an editor said she 'has joined the new anti-Semites in Europe'. In challenging the Zionist version of Israel's past, Ilan Pappe is one of Israel's 'new historians', a distinguished and courageous critic. He has likened the Israeli state to apartheid South Africa, with its Palestinian 'bantustans' and plethora of humiliating controls which now restrict the movement of people within their own communities. He says that Sharon's goal is to begin the mass expulsion of Palestinians across the Jordan; only a pretext is required. According to one poll, 44 per cent of Israelis support this latest 'cleansing', known as 'transfer', another euphemism from the past. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, wrote, 'We have accomplished our settlement by transfer of the [Palestinian] population.' Not quite. The notion of a 'final transfer' is supported by a number of cabinet members in the ruling Likud government, by leading Labour Party members and professors and media commentators. 'Very few now dare to condemn it,' says Pappe. 'A circle has been closed. When Israel took over almost 80 per cent of Palestine in 1948, it did so through settlement and ethnic cleansing. The country has a prime minister who enjoys wide public support and who wants to determine by force the future of the remaining 20 per cent.' Now it might be Professor Pappe's turn to be expelled from Haifa University. In an open letter circulated two weeks ago, he writes that the dean of the humanities department has demanded his expulsion for criticising the university over the Katz case. This runs deeper; Pappe has been a consistent opponent of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine. He describes the university 'court' that threatens to punish him as a 'McCarthyite charade'. He has called upon 'universities worldwide to debate a boycott of Israeli institutions, given their contempt for basic principles of academic freedom and dispassionate research'. He says that only international shaming, free of the intimidation that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, will break the silence about 'horrific deeds in 1948, and so prevent their repetition'. Others in Israel, as courageous as Ilan Pappe, are also under pressure, both crude and insidious. In Ha'eretz, Israel's equivalent of the Guardian, two outstanding journalists, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, have consistently reported the unpopular truth about Israel's occupation of the remaining 22 per cent of the Palestine it conquered in 1967. They live daily with threats and hate mail. Upholding the bravest traditions of Jewish humanity, they need international solidarity. You can support Ilan Pappe, and the cause of justice in both Israel and Palestine, by e-mailing pappe@poli.haifa.ac.il John Pilger's latest book, The New Rulers of the World, is newly published by Verso