A modestly dressed woman in her early thirties was sitting near a lake. When I exited from the water, where I was swimming, she asked me if the water was safe to swim in. We then proceeded to have a conversation. She had an accent which I did not recognize, and informed me she was from Algeria.
During the course of what turned out to be a lengthy conversation which covered religion and politics, she stated the the following: ISIS is not Islamic. Islam is a religion of peace. But her definition of peace and my definition of peace turned out to be quite different. The main difference between what she believes and what ISIS espouses is the extreme to which ISIS resorts to violence, and the willingness of ISIS and other Islamists to violently spread Islam, while she believes Muslims are justified in the use of violence only to retake lands that were once Islamic.
She said that when lands become under Islamic control, they must forever remain under Islamic control. When the conversation turned to Israel and Palestine, she said that the only way this conflict can end is for Muslims to rule, and for Jews to submit to the laws of Sharia as applied to the status of non Muslims living under Islamic rule. When I suggested territorial compromises, she made it clear that the Islamic position, not just her position, is that there can be no two state solution. I said that this was the recipe for endless war. She reiterated her point that when lands are under Muslim control, even if Muslims lose control over those lands, they must be returned to the Islamic fold. I said this meant endless war not only for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, but also for Muslims and Christians in South Philippines, Muslims and Buddhists in South Thailand, Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir, and many other places.
She accused Israel of killing babies and children in Gaza, stating that Hamas and Palestinians have the right to fight, while the Israelis do not have the same right. When I asked her why the responsibility for civilian casualties does not fall on the side that chooses to wage war, especially when they do this from densely populated civilian areas( to say nothing about using the civilian population as a shield), she returned to her argument that it is the duty of Muslims to defend and take back their lands. I pointed out that most Israelis are the descendants of Jews that were driven out from Arab Muslim and other Muslim majority lands, and they do not consider it their right or duty to wage war and terror against the Muslims that took their lands. Why does the right to wage endless war only extend to Muslims, I asked. She replied again that a fundamental duty of Muslims is to defend and regain their lost lands. I then said, If all the Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews and everyone else wages war against Muslims to regain lands that Muslims took from them, the whole world will be engulfed in war.
I asked her again why this right to wage jihad or war does not extend to Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others that have had their lands taken by force by Muslims. She stated that because Islam is the only true and correct religion, other religions can live in peace under Islamic rule, but it must be Muslims, not anyone else, that rules in the lands that are now or that have been under Islamic control.
Regarding the United States, she said that this land is not possessed by any religion, and has never been ruled by Islam, so there is no need for conflict.
I will not get into the reasons why some people believe certain conflicts are only political in nature, not religious, and ignore everything that clearly shows otherwise. Religious conflicts are near impossible to stop. They can be stopped, but it does not begin with the premise that compromise is impossible, that one religion must dominate and rule over the others, and that war and violence are acceptable in the implementation of this domination.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.