Muslim leader warns Gaza Christians

JERUSALEM June 19 -- An Islamic militant leader warned Gaza's Christians to be "ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace." Israel Today reported Tuesday that Gaza-based Muslim groups linked to Hamas and possibly Al Qaeda warned local Christians that Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip means they must submit to Islamic law, Catholic News reported Tuesday.

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, said Gaza's Muslims "expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza." He said "missionary activity" will not be tolerated and those suspected of trying to convert local Muslims will be "harshly punished."

http://www.arcamax.com/religionandspirituality/s-204814-346029

Islam is against all other political systems and religions. When they are the majority, they would impose their views and will upon non-Muslims. If they are a minority they would talk about multi-culturalism, freedom to practice genital mutilation of both sexes, etc

Before a Muslim can be an extremist Muslim, he/she must first be a Muslim.

The West is being duped into thinking that Muslims believe in secular democracy. They don't. Recently they insulted democracy and free speech by protesting against the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. Yet there is almost complete silence from the Muslim world of Arabs killing black African Muslims in Darfur, Sudan

Philip Tang,

hmmm..Not sure if you read your own comment:

"In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya"

So, the guy you are quoting is a self proclaimed leader of a salafi jihadi cult with his and your admission. How is that related to mainstream islam?

Can we be more specific about the term 'mainstream Islam'. That is, how do we define 'mainstream Islam'?

My guess is that there is no such thing as 'mainstream Islam'. And importantly this is a significant cause of Islamic discord, and violent unrest.

Both Sunni and Shia sects see themselves as the 'real' Islam and therefore bully eachother with cold war strategy. Unfortunately this cold war is currently entering into a hot phase due to the temporary rise of Iranian power in the Middle East.

Arab Muslims numerically outnumbered by Asian Muslims from countries like Indonesia feel threatened as their religio-racial hegemony slips into deep decline. This can only get worse as the political and economic power of the Asia-Pacific Rim grows.

Muslim countries from central Asia remain a back water and are dwarfed by the regions new superpower, India.

So, the Islamic civilisation struggles on to find its real cultural identity with no clear front runner. And competing groups cut eachother to pieces while holding up their own parochial ideal as being the 'One True Islam'.

Yet, as any irreligious secular person knows, no Islamic consensus can ever be met in a globalised and interconnected world because Islamic literature does not allow it.

Islamic literature, like other religious literature is confused, illogical and self-contradictory. Therfore, the 'real' or 'pure' Islam can never be elucidated or properly defined and will remain a source of violent and aggressive debate between competitors.

The plain advantage that the West has is the pre-eminence of science and the scientific method. In these we find logic, clarity and certainty. Without scientific thinking at the core of Western civilisation we will either return to barbarism or plummet into Islamic like termoil

Fellow_Human, may I ask as well, what you mean by “mainstream Islam”? Within Christianity e.g. Catholicism is clearly defined - irrespective of whether you call it mainstream Christianity or not - so for instance you cannot blame the Pope for what George Bush did to Iraq. I know, there is no “Muslim pope”, but still.

Can you name a stream or version of Islam, that you can identify with? I am just curious, because I liked your views expressed on this forum. Also, TR’s comment, as interesting as it is, is still the view of an outsider to religion, who, I suspect, does not distinguish between religion and its social and historical framework (like e.g. Christianity and Christendom). So I think much of the criticism of Islam is actually a criticism of “Islamdom”. Can you agree with this?

What is your personal opinion on the importance, for instance, of Said Nursi or Fethullah Gülen, and neo-Sufism in general (c.f. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1188)? I do not know how important is mysticism for this or that religion, but perhaps it could serve as some kind of a common denominator, the “biological” manifestations of which today even neuroscience cannot ignore.

TR / George,

Mainstream Islam have nothing to do with Shiaa, Sunnis or sufism. All Muslims have one Quran.

Mainstream Islam are those who follow the teachings of Islam:
- Belief in one God, all his prophets and Holy books.
- Pay the alms, fast Ramadan and pray.
- Follow the teachings of Islam: purify their heart, intent and actions (see purification of self).
- Do good, help the poor and those in need.
This apply to Sunnis, shiaa, sufism (which is over 90% of Muslims).

Groups like Salafi, Wahabi, etc.. are also muslims since they believe in the same scripture but they go for extreme and old interpretations (as you know salafi means 'old'or 'ancestry').

Hope I answered your question.

Peace,

George ,
The problem with your version of “religion” is it doesn’t sync with the facts.And, you don’t have to resort to rocket science to demonstrate it.

The instructions in the holy books you refer to are not generalised guidelines.The are largely specific ( though sometimes contradictory) rulings/instructions.
God is QUOTED -QUOTED -QUOTED :
-describing the creation of the world
-giving erroneous medical advice
-giving erroneous dietary advice
-ordering genocide .

Either the God got it wrong or his reporters got it wrong
( & whatever the answer - it will be devastating for your story)

I don’t see how, if you are going to be CONSISTENT you can cheery-pick.[Revising , "reinterpreting", back peddling, ironically to suit/incorporate secular norms ]
Eg The Creation Story:
- Because in light of the latest scientific research -we cant sustain that story anymore - we now ruled(3000+ years later) it wasn’t meant to be taken literally anyway OR,
Eg Genocide:
-Although it was Ok to kill men woman & children in cold blood in those days, ON GODS INSTRUCTIONS -it’s now out of fashion ( at least for the moment !) .

There is no doubt much that is positive in many of the holy books .
But its not good enough to say that there is a lot of good-if God is all powerful -all knowing It needs to be ALL GOOD.

Further pointing to wonders beyond current scientists understanding is not an argument against science Science (as opposed to some scientists) has no stake in the outcome -only, in how the outcome is determined.

Religions dilemma is, it needs to have an outcome that shows (i) not just that a God exists -but (ii) that that God meets the description laid out in the holy book - and I here to tell you, it is not looking too promising for the theists at this point in the match…