Questioning Islam - Part I

With all the violence in recent years centered around Islam, I decided to research the faith. I have spent years Christianity, Jesus, and the Holy Bible. A couple years ago, I began a more serious study of Judaism and last year I began to study Mormonism. As you might guess, I was raised Christian, Episcopalian (Anglican) to be precise. I studied to better understand the history of my religion and how it came to be as I know it. I began studying Judaism after meeting an elderly Jewish lady who survived the Holocaust but lost her entire family. In a few minutes of conversations with her, I realized my knowledge of Judaism was very limited. For one thing, I didn't understand antisemitic behavior or the strange beliefs people held about Jews. Some people actually thought this small woman had horns? What was she talking about? I understand that incredibly odd misconception now but that is fodder for another time.

Last week, I turned my attention to Islam. I skimmed a summary book of the faith but didn't get much out of it. The writer was too obviously devote and I had a hard time reading the flowery words of praise. (Note: I have an equally hard time with Christian writers who show no inclination to question Christian history or beliefs.) Next I went to one of my favorite scholars and researchers of modern times, Joseph P. Farrell. The scope and depth of this man's knowledge astounds me. Islamic studies is not his major area of study but a solid understanding of the Islamic faith, its history and its current incarnation is necessary for his analysis of current and historical events. On his website (gizadeathstar.com) Dr. Farrell has lectures available to his subscribers. At the request of his subscribers, Dr Farrell developed series of seven lectures discussing Islam, the faith, the history, and the present.

One of the sources for Dr Farrell's presentation is Robert Spencer. That name immediately drew my attention. Robert Spencer is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate extremist". SPLC opens their description of Spencer by stressing he has never had any academic training in Islam and a terrorist cited him in his manifesto. SPLC later has the audacity to mention that he has a graduate degree in Religious Studies from UNC at Chapel Hill. Do they not understand what religious studies means? He has spent his life since 1980 using his religious studies training to examine all aspects of Islamic, religion law and history. Until the Muslim Brotherhood complained in 2011, Spencer led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States government and our intelligence agencies. (sources: www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert & https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer)

So. Let me get this straight. A man spends 35 years using his graduate school training from a prominent U.S. university to study what he was trained to study but SPLC declares he has no academic training? His expertise is highly valued by the US government. He leads training seminars for many branches of our government and lectures extensively at major academic institutions. He has written at least 16 books about Islam and has appeared on numerous mainstream media news programs discussing his research. But... SPLC essentially calls him a hack with no basis for his claims. They claim his only aim is to spread hate.

Just because some people don't like Robert Spencer's findings and a terrorist quotes him doesn't mean he is wrong and needs to be labeled as an extremist. If we use the same criteria of terrorist quoting text, the Quran and Islam deserve a far higher spot on the hate extremist list. Spencer's work is dangerous to many because he has taken a ration and academic approach to Islam and discover the inherent flaw in its theology. At its core, at its most fundamental, Islam is a religion that promotes sharia law and jihad against infidels. The peaceful passages from the time at Mecca were replaced and superseded by the violent and radical passages from Medina.

Not all Muslims understand this. Most non-Muslims have no clue. I didn't. Just as there is the Old and New Testament in the Holy Bible, there are the Meccan and Medinan portions of the Quran. Just like the New Testament overrules the Old Testament for Christian, the Medinan passages have more authority than the Meccan passages. Simple then. Old replaced by newer. Except the Quran is not chronological. A student of Islam can not simply know by a passage's location in the book if it is older or newer. Hence many can cite the peaceful passages without realizing that they were invalidated by a newer violent passage.

This simple idea of Medinan portion and Meccan portion is vital. it is also dangerous. Millions of Muslims are peaceful. Millions could never imagine waging jihad of their neighbors. Most do not realize that the jihadists are not radicalized Muslims. They are in fact Muslims following the Quran as it is interpreted by the leaders of the faith.

This is just the beginning of my journey to understand Islam and why there are so many violent adherents to this ideology. I have trouble calling it a religion of God when it promotes the wholesale slaughter of children of God who have done nothing more heinous than be born into a different culture with a different understanding of God.

Next time I will discuss more about the origin of Islam. While Dr. Farrell has helped tremendously in my understanding of Islam, I am doing as he suggests and researching it further. For anyone with a questioning mind, I highly recommend following Giza Death Star of YouTube for his weekly News & Views published almost every Thursday. For more detailed information, join his website ($140/ year). I am super stingy and I don't regret a penny of the membership fee. I wish I had joined months ago instead of wasting my time scouring YouTube for his lectures.