Students learn myths and realities of Islam in America

Guest speaker Shaykh Abdul Nasir Jangda spoke about Shariah Law: The Myth and Reality of Islam in America hosted by UK Muslim Student Association in the Student Center ballroom in Lexington, Ky., on Monday, November 15, 2012. Photo by Adam Pennavaria | Staff

By Morgan Eads

Students became informed at an event centered around the myths and reality of Islam and America on campus Thursday night.

Students came to hear from founder and director of the Qalam Institute, Shaykh Abdul Nasir Jangda, as well as UK’s own associate professor in modern and classical languages, Ihsan Bagby.

Students came to the program for reasons ranging from extra-credit opportunities to interest in the subject.

“My friends were hosting it and I wanted to support them, but the topic was also interesting and one that is concerning is to people,” first year dental student and Muslim Rod Erfani said.

One member of the Muslim Student Association expressed his feelings about the program.

“This is the first time we’ve allowed open questions. We were hesitant at first thinking that no one would do it, but we’re glad we did,” said Samir Nasir, economics senior and Muslim Student Association treasurer.
“Some might think they are offensive, but we like these questions. It is an opportunity to educate them.”

Erfani was impressed with the amount of information the speakers were able to give in a short amount of time.

“I thought it was very good for them to condense such a complicated issue and really cover all the basics,” Erfani said.

The event was opened with international studies junior and MSA member Salman Jeelani’s recitation of the opening chapter of the Qur’an, also known as the Surah Al-Fatihah.

Bagby then gave a history of Islam in America in his introduction and detailed the idea of being a Muslim and an American.

“About the 1980s the Muslim community in America slowly but decisively embraced the idea that they were going to be holy Muslims and holy Americans at the same time,” Bagby said.

Bagby also went into the animosity that is shown to Muslims in America.

“Since 9/11 the pace and the fervor and the debate is as high as ever,” Bagby said. “I have never seen in America such an atmosphere of hate directed at Muslims.”

Bagby went on to say that non-Muslims were not the only ones affected by the attacks of 9/11.

“I must say that 9/11 was a wakeup call to everybody, to Muslims that there are hateful people who call themselves Muslims and embrace Islam to do terrible things here in this country,” he said.

Jangda went on to explain the implications that Shariah has on the United States government saying that it is more focused on the persons personal life.

“There are no implications of government, governments or law enforcement,” he said.

Jangda went on to say that in a case where the laws of a country go against Shariah, Muslims are to follow the law of the land.

Jangda also challenged Muslims to learn more about Islam so they can intelligently answer questions and not further misconceptions.

“As Muslims, it is very, very sad how little we know and how uninformed we are about our own religion,” he said. “So how can we, who do not know what is right and what is wrong, expect someone who does not follow this religion and does not embrace this religion as their own, how can we be upset when they misunderstand?”

Support for terrorism does not stop at U.S. shores. A recent study published in the Middle East Quarterly concluded that of 100 U.S. mosques surveyed, a total of 81% had literature that either directly advocated violence (51%), or supported violence (30%), in the interest of spreading Islam and implementing Shariah law

American Muslims indulge serial denial of the global jihad threat mainly because candorphobia is their orthodoxy.

It is counter-rational to imply criticism of an ideology is “uninformed.” This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and any candid opposition is irrational.

16K+ deadly Islamo-supremacist attacks since 9/11 don’t lie.

Try harder to remove your orthodox blinkers and think rationally about the sharia-inspired threat of global jihadist.

And then there is this:

The assumption is that jihad (Islamic holy war) is only permitted in self-defense, so Muslims would never strike unless they are threatened or attacked first. What constitutes a threat or an attack – or any perceived “offense” – can be a cartoon, a movie trailer, or even children in kindergarten naming a toy teddy bear, Mohammed.[48] Throughout Islamic history, the invasive nature of jihad was so evident as to be beyond all question. But Muslim apologists have muddied the water with interpretations of the Quran, which obfuscate or sanitize the original meaning. According to the widely respected Dictionary of Islam (1885), which is still available from Islamic publishers, jihad is defined as (emphasis mine):

A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”[49]

If infidels refuse the call to Islam and do not agree to pay the dhimmi tax, called jizya, in recognition of their subservience, Muslims are required to make war upon them, “set fire to their habitations…inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their grain,” to weaken their resolve.[50] Muslims are directed to engage in a perpetual holy war against unbelievers until they submit to Islamic rule. This longstanding historical interpretation is fully supported by modern Islamists and serves as the propelling force behind their aggression.[51]

When Islamists call their religion “a religion of peace,” they mean something quite different than the commonly received Western understanding of “peace” or harmony among people of differing loyalties. Saudi Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid explains in his fatwa (religious ruling), “Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah.”[52] In other words, once the world submits to Islam, there will be peace—pax Islama.

And here is still more information about Islam:

Globally, the story is the same. Out of the 57 nations which comprise the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, only three rise to the level of flawed democracies, according to the 2010 Democracy Index by The Economist.[7] With the exception of communist and former communist countries, Islamic nations impose the highest level of government restrictions on religion. Among the predominantly Islamic countries in the middle east and North Africa, 80% have anti-blasphemy laws and 60% of these nations enforce them.[8] Democracy, individual liberty, free speech, toleration, and equality are simply not consistent – or even compatible – with traditional Islamic theology and Shariah law.

Here is some additional information about Islam:

The very concept of religion in traditional Islam differs considerably from Christianity, Judaism, and most other world religions. Since the time of the Enlightenment and the rise of secular governments, Americans and Europeans have looked upon religion primarily as a personal affair of the heart. They want to live in a tolerant society that reflects their common values, and where they are free to practice their religion without compulsion or hostility. But Islamism is not just a religion; it is also a totalitarian ideology. It regulates not only religious practice, but also civil law, public speech, dress, diet, marriage, family, economics, education, property, defense, and so on – and, most totalitarian of all, those who choose to leave Islam are often threatened with death. Unlike Christianity, which recognizes the divine legitimacy of secular government (see Paul’s letter to the Romans 13:1-7), Islamism recognizes only one legitimate form of government: Theocracy. The imam is effectively, if not actually, the head of state.