Editor,
First, I’d like to thank David Lynch for showing fairness in publications and allowing fact-based criticisms of Islam to be openly voiced. The opposition to Resolution 6S is important because its intentions were made clear: attempting to treat “Islamophobia” as a hate crime.
Allowing Resolution 6S to go unnoticed, unchecked or without consequences would set the precedent for future actions of bigotry to become accepted. It should also be noted that although ASUNM President Rachel Williams insinuated that Resolution 6S was not meant to force anybody into accepting a certain ideology, Resolution 6S and ASUNM urged the UNM administration to openly support the resolution.
This goes beyond the realm of the “student body” and is a political attempt to enforce the resolution through UNM staff members. This action is an invitation for UNM staff members to become bigots themselves, as they show favoritism to Muslims and attempt to stigmatize, harass, intimidate or show prejudice against people who voice their anti-Islamic beliefs.
To the critics who voiced their opinions as to why they believe that Islam is peaceful or that Islam can be a religion of peace and tolerance, the Quran clearly states that innovations are forbidden. At the risk of being guilty of bidah (innovation) and becoming kafir (see Quran for how this is defined), “moderate Muslims” should show some real courage and actually look into what the Quran, Hadiths and the schools of jurisprudence say about violence. Those “moderate Muslims” (nominal Muslims) who are afraid of their own religion should consider the definition of “Islamophobia,” as it applies very fittingly to themselves: people who are afraid of their own religion. Irrational, isn’t it?
In their desperation to deny that violence against non-believers, Christians and Jews is commanded by Allah, some “moderate Muslims” have suggested that the Hadiths and schools of jurisprudence be discounted, and to promote ijtehad (individual interpretations) and ijma (consensus) in order to re-define Islam. This wishful thinking may have good intentions, but it blatantly ignores the primary source of Islam itself: the Quran.
For example, Quran 33:36 says, “It is not for the believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.”
The Quran also states in 11:1, “This is a Book, whose verses have been made firm and free from imperfection and then they have been expounded in detail.” Here, we can see a problem — why are the Hadiths and schools of jurisprudence needed when the Quran clearly states that it is perfect?
Perhaps the Quran itself has not been so perfectly preserved, contrary to what Muslims will claim. For example, evidence from Sahih Muslim 2286 shows a missing chapter, which cannot be found in the Quran. Will “moderate Muslims” discredit Sahih Muslim because of this unwanted fact?
It is very interesting to hear Muslims claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, and this may become more evident when debates over “interpretation” and “classical Arabic” arise. However, Muslims will claim that the essence and intent is preserved, regardless of these differences — but only when questioned in the context of the “perfect preservation” of the Quran.
However, if the logic used for fought vs. killed is used as a critique of Islam’s violence, Muslims will then claim that “interpretation” matters. This is a double standard. There are many violent verses in the Quran, and in the Hadiths as well. Here is Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 177: “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
For the readers who are confused or have already been fooled by “moderate Muslims,” consider Quran 3:28 — “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah, except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” In other words, Muslims are not supposed to be friends with non-Muslims unless done through deception. Bukhari also records a similar theme, found through Ibn Kathir (Quran authority figure): “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”
For those who question the threat of Islam, current events also show reality that coincides with the Quran. Take a look at the Muslim takeover of England, where “Muslim areas” are governed by Sharia laws rather than governmental laws. Considering that all Islamic exegesis must come from the Quran itself, Islam cannot command anything other than hatred and violence.
Baseless attempts may be made to justify “moderate Islam,” but without changing the Quran itself, nothing can change. This presents another problem: If the Quran itself needs to be changed, it is an admission that Islam is not “divinely inspired.” Some Muslims will state that you yourself need to be a Muslim to understand the ideology of Islam, or to criticize it.
This is a false argument. Wake up America.
Sincerely,
Samuel Ryu
UNM student
