 |
| Paris-Facebook-Travel+Leisure |
Albert Mohler and The Briefing today cited this very interesting article from quote 'Anjem Choudary... a radical Muslim cleric in London and a lecturer in sharia.'
Albert Mohler
USA Today January 8
Cited
'Anjem Choudary 10:52 a.m. EST January 8, 2015
Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?'
Cited
'Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.'
Although documented as the views of a radical Muslim, here in written form from USA today is politically incorrect philosophy and theology from an Islamic cleric and lecturer living in Western Europe/The United Kingdom.
Although disturbing views are documented; it is at least refreshing to see non-politically Islamic views presented from major media because such views have significant impact in the world today, both Islamic and now Western.
Cited
'Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.'
From a Christian and New Testament perspective and view, the triune Biblical God in Christ is to be obeyed with commandments and in the making of disciples, for example, Matthew 28.
However, the state is to be obeyed in regard to law and order, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.
Therefore, the law is not to be taken into the hands of the Christian for religious reasons, but rather is to be obeyed. This is always the case unless the State would demand obedience to laws and regulations that would basically force one to deny Christian faith and philosophy, in whole or part, in favour of the State.
Christian disobedience would not be warranted because the honour of God has been violated or because the laws of Christianity and the New Testament has been violated, but would be warranted only because a Christian was being prohibited by the State from practicing within reason, freedom of religion.
Therefore, a drastic theological difference between New Testament Christianity and radical Islamic is presented.
Cited
'The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.'
As much as my Christian worldview differs from secular worldviews, I do not disagree with secular Western states that seek within reason for the sake of national security to prohibit radical Islamic movement within their borders.
These measures are necessary to protect a nation from potential terrorism. These are also necessary as protection from potentially large Islamic population and related possible Islamic radicalization in a political context.
I am not stating whatsoever that Islam should be outlawed in Western nations and do reason that moderate Muslims can live within a Western structure.
Cited
'It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.'
The breaking of law of order and murder is extremely morally and ethically wrong in the context of attempting to protect one's Prophet...
I side with Western governments here.
