Who Speaks for Islam II

I have been mulling over a letter published in the 21 April edition of the Times of Swaziland. In it, AB Sule responds to "Stones" with a piece headlined "Other religions are dangerous". Mr. Sule's last comment stuck with me: "Our motto is: Love for all, hatred for none."
Does Mr. Sule mean that is the motto of Islam? Many Muslims live by that slogan. My life has been blessed by friendships with Muslims whom I enjoy and respect. But Mr. Sule's piece reminded me of a subject I have never seriously discussed with these friends.
Unfortunately, "Love for all, hatred for none" is not what comes to mind for many people when they think of Islam. Many people have legitimate concerns about the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries. As Mr. Sule points out, one shouldn't judge a religion by the poor example of a few of its members. Nevertheless, religous minorities in many Muslim-majority countries have a hard time. Since I haven't read the Quran, perhaps Mr. Sule can explain if these situations reflect a true understanding of the teachings of the Quran or if they are the poor examples of a few misguided members.
Let us start with an hypothetical situation. Mr. Sule travels to Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, with a friend. The friend is carrying a New Testament, and wears a T-shirt with "Come to Jesus" printed across the chest. What sort of reception would the friend receive at the airport in Riyadh? According to Operation World (admittedly, a Christian publication), no Christians are allowed to even enter Mecca, Islam's most important city. Christian gatherings are not allowed for Saudis or expatriates, and Saudis who become Christians face the death penalty. All Saudis who have been found out to be Christians have been executed. Saudi Arabia has a religious police force (the mutawwa) to enforce the Islam-only rule. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace and biggest advocate of Islam around the world. Can I trust that they are closely following the Quran in their practices? It does not appear that the Saudi government's behaviour conforms to "Love for all (including Christians), hatred for none". Even now, two Indian Christians are in jail in Riyadh awaiting trial for their faith. One of them reports that he has been pressed to convert to Islam.
Let us consider the Islamic Republic of Iran. Again according to Operation World, Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam are allowed, but "All other deviations or defections from Islam are severely handled" and "All Christian proselytism is forbidden". No Christian publishing or distribution of literature is allowed. Is this Quranic Islam, or is it not?
Afghanistan under the Taliban (prior to late 2001): men could not participate in international boxing events because the Taliban insisted all men grow beards, and beards are not allowed in international boxing. Men who took family photographs were beaten; according to the Taliban's interpretation of the Quran, this was unacceptable. The Taliban instituted the death penalty for anyone leaving Islam. According to Operation World, women were "banished from public life, forbidden employment, restricted to the home, denied education (for girls) and health services". As I have not yet read the Quran, I just don't know: is this Quranic, or not?
The following excerpt is from a man who grew up in Iran and became a Christian. His and many other conversion stories are available at www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html. Previous to this excerpt, he had been in conversation with some Christians: "When I went to my Qur'an class, I asked if Christianity was right. My teacher said, 'What?' He brought me in front of the class room (in the mosque not at school) and slapped me as hard as he could. I fell to ground with my whole face shaking. He asked some kids to go outside and get some sticks, dip them in water and then he hit me in the hands. He put pencils between my fingers and squeezed them until I could be only on one foot and I was jumping on it. He had me carry the heaviest kid in the class. I had to crawl around the room. After that he kicked me out of the class room." Later that day, this man related these events to his uncle. The uncle chased him out of the house while the man's grandmother urged the uncle to "kill him, kill him". The man became a Christian and eventually left Iran. Was the behaviour of this man's teacher and family in line with true Islam, or not?
Pakistan is an Islamic state (its official name is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and features "blasphemy laws". These laws state that "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." Similar laws exist in other countries with sizeable Muslim populations, and the scope of actions considered violations of this law has broadened. According to Nina Shea and Paul Marshall of the Hudson Institute (a group promoting religious freedom), "Muslim blasphemy has recently been defined to include: denouncing stoning as a human-rights violation (Sudan), opening girls' schools (Bangladesh), criticizing the Guardianship of the Jurists (Iran), petitioning for a constitution (Saudi Arabia), use of the word 'Allah' by Christians (Malaysia), rejecting an order for violent jihad (Sudan), praying at the graves of relatives (Saudi Arabia), translating the Koran into Dari (Afghanistan), accidentally tearing a calendar page containing a Koranic verse (Pakistan), naming a teddy bear after a boy named Mohamed (Sudan), urging that the Koran be understood in its historical and cultural context (Indonesia), teaching Shi'ism (Egypt), and calling for a ban on child brides (Yemen). Mob violence, intimidation, court trials and penalties accompany these cases.
"And once in place, blasphemy laws are nearly impossible to reform. This year in Pakistan, Governor Salman Taseer and cabinet minister Shabbaz Bhatti were murdered for opposing such laws."
With the above anecdotes in mind, many non-Muslims wonder if "Love for all, hatred for none" summarizes the teaching of Islam for Muslim-majority countries. I seek clarification: are the events mentioned above true expressions of the teaching of Islam?
Rudy Poglitshmailto:Poglitshrpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstothetos.blogspot.com/

Einstein, Intelligent Design, and a Safe Society

Leival Richards (24 April) paraphrases Richard Dawkins paraphrasing Albert Einstein (talk about an overextended supply line!) to the effect that primitive man was clueless as to cause and effect and thus invented the idea of a caring, loving God.

To understand how super-massive objects bend the path of light rays, read Albert Einstein's work. To learn how to harness the atom to produce enormous quantities of energy for peaceful (or bellicose) purposes, Einstein is your man. But when it comes to understanding what people believe about God, I must ask: how many in-depth interviews with "primitive men" did Mr. Einstein conduct (while simultaneously hypothesizing about the structure of the universe from his position at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University) before he reached his conclusions? Put another way, expertise in one field does not guarantee expertise (or even competence) in another. If you have toothache, do you visit a neurosurgeon? If you need a broken bone set, do you visit a dentist?

Mr. Richards takes issue with Intelligent Design, citing "dynamic climatic conditions and numerous extinctions" as two reasons (among others) proving there is no "omnipotent anthropomorphic engineer" for life on earth.

Once again, let's get a little perspective. If Mr. Richards were to pour honey instead of petrol
into the fuel tank of his automobile, his automobile would (predictably) cease to function in a short while. Would Mr. Richards then be justified in telling his auto mechanic "Because my car suffered a cataclysmic disaster, it is clear that no intelligence designed this car in the first place"? Of course not. Christians hold that God created a good world, but that we humans have freely chosen to sin, and that this sin affects not only our own lives but the functioning of the entire biosphere. Mr. Richards and anyone else interested in empirical, scientific arguments against blind evolution and in favor of intelligent design are referred to Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and the rest of the so-called "New Atheists"-whomever they may quote for backup, including the genius Albert Einstein-are no help to decent folks who are not Christians but who want justice in the world. Why? If we are but complex biochemical reactors brought into existence by blind chance and not by any higher creative and moral power (which most people call God, and some people-including Jesus Christ-call God the Father), then we are not accountable to anyone for our actions. Our actions can never be good or bad, because there is no moral standard higher than another man's opinion by which to judge them. How could there be, since there is no moral judge above human beings? In the atheistic materialist mindset, to say "Murder is wrong" is no more consequential than saying "I prefer emasi to incwancwa". Atheists might object to this equivalence, and that is good-because it is not true. Still, that is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. It is no good for them to appeal to "common human decency", because someone could simply say "That is your opinion; I really want to rob that bank, or torture cats for entertainment, or kidnap children for profit, and you cannot tell me I am in the wrong. That would only be your opinion, and my preferences are just as legitimate as yours."

Observant readers see where this leads: the only way to keep order in a society where this line of thinking were to take root would be overwhelming force. No appeal to higher moral law would be convincing-only the ability to handcuff and throw into jail men who knock down children for amusement will keep such a society even partially safe. And heaven save us of the folks who hold that law is no more significant that personal opinion come into power. Does Mr. Richards believe this would be a positive development away from our "primitive" past?

Thankfully, God and His moral code do exist. I gently suggest Mr. Richards read two more books: More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell, which explains how the New Testament tells the truth about Jesus Christ's divine nature, His life on earth, and His claims on our lives; and Honey From The Rock by Roy Schoeman, which describes how some Jewish people-including some previously devout atheists-became Christians through the direct intervention of God Almighty. Not only will Mr. Richards find a suitable basis for a moral code to let him and the rest of us live safe and free lives, he may (hopefully) came to know the One who made him and can give him eternal life and joy.

Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

Abortion, regret, Easter, forgiveness

This week Christians remember Christ's entry to Jerusalem, His crucifixion and death on Good Friday, and His Resurrection on Easter morning. When we get honest with ourselves, each of us remembers things we've done that were wrong-whether they hurt other people or were simply dishonest. Jesus' death and resurrection takes away the punishment and grief of our sin and brings us into friendship with God the Father.

This space has documented the emotional, spiritual, and relational chaos that abortion visits on huge numbers of women. Perhaps someone reading this knows the grief of an abortion they cannot leave in the past.

Christ came to forgive and heal the victims of abortion. In his document "The Gospel of Life", Pope John Paul II wrote: "I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give into discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercy is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone's right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life."

Any woman suffering the painful aftereffects of an abortion is encouraged, especially this week and weekend, to turn to Christ for healing. He came for each one of us, to take away the punishment and pain of those things we know we should not have done. He came to replace that pain with life and peace. God bless you.

Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

Let Us Try Something Different

Last week the Times told us that under a proposed law, 12-year-olds would be able to buy condoms. That's hardly news; where I live, condoms are free at the shop and one can get condoms for free all over Mbabane. On the same page of that issue of the Times (1 April), FLAS employee Mancoba Mabuza weighed in on the side of comprehensive sexual information and reproductive health services for the youth. Mr. Mabuza mentioned access to "emergency contraceptives" (EC) for victims of sexual abuse. Too bad the FLAS communication officer didn't communicate that one way EC works is to cause abortion (by preventing the newly-conceived person from implanting in the mother's uterus), and that abortion in the case of rape or incest makes it easier for the male perpetrators to repeat their evil by destroying the evidence of their assault-namely, the baby.

Anyway, here's my point. AIDS continues to rage in Swaziland. Swazi youth have been inundated with floods of sexual education and contraceptive technologies for years already. Instead of continuing the deluge of technical sex information and devices to pre-teens, let's emphasize the positive benefits of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage. Doing so would slash the HIV rate within a generation, and would greatly reduce the incidence of other sex diseases. It would allow pre-teens and teenagers to focus on age-appropriate activity-including their schooling and personal development-without the potentially hazardous distraction of sex. Ultimately, emphasizing sex saved for marriage will build stronger marriages and families. If young people get to know each other without the clouding, confusing factor of sex involved, they will be able to see the positive and negative aspects of their potential spouses more clearly and make a better choice. Then, when they do find that special someone and exchange their "I dos" at the altar, their marital embrace later that night-and every time after that-will be something special between just the two of them for the rest of their lives. Let's make saving sex for marriage, and faithfulness in marriage, the primary emphasis to fight AIDS and build the nation. Everyone will benefit.

Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

The Road Ahead

"Begin with the end in mind" says a proverb. Numerous abortion advocates and practicioners took up the abortion cause believing it would help women and children in the long run. Their first-hand experience with the procedure and its long-term effects, however, changed their minds. Bernard Nathanson helped legalize abortion in the United States in the early 1970s; but by 1979 he had begun to doubt how helpful abortion really was, and by the time of his death earlier this year he had become an ardent pro-life advocate. Anthony Levatino gave up performing abortions because he felt he had become a paid killer. Carol Everett ran a successful syndicate of abortion clinics until the volume of the killing, the falsehoods told to women with unplanned pregnancies in order to get them to have abortions, and the unhealthy relationships within the abortion business changed her mind. She too took up the pro-life cause. Joan Appleton entered abortion advocacy believing it would help women. Yet she became disillusioned and said "I didn't like what we were doing for women. If it was right, why were they suffering? What had we done? We created a monster and didn't know what to do with it." She also left the abortion industry.

These individuals actively promoted and participated in abortion, believing it would help women and children. They got out of abortion advocacy because they saw abortion ended up damaging women and children. May Swaziland learn from their mistakes. No to abortion; yes to love and life.

Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

Teach Your Children Well

On Monday 11 April the Times told us about an inyanga in Sithobelweni who does abortions for women young and old. A number of local citizens were quoted saying things such as "This is a bad practice", "This is evil" "This is a tragic situation" and "We hope the police will help us in this matter". These are good sentiments, because they reflect a concern for the youngest of all Swazi citizens.

Still, one must ask: what led these women to take such a drastic step, a step which in some cases led to their own tragic deaths? How could we, the fellow citizens of these women who found themselves unexpectedly pregnant, have helped these women avoid their terrible choice in the first place?

The old saying goes, "An ounce (or gram) of prevention is worth a pound (or kilogram) of cure". If a girl or young woman appreciates her own value and dignity, she is much less likely to seek the "approval" of fast-talking sugar daddies by giving them sex. Further, understanding the proper context and purpose for sex can prevent such tragic situations. How can young ladies gain such appreciation and understanding?

They must learn it from their elders. If the adults in children's lives practice and teach abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage (according to the state of life of those adults), Swazi children will almost automatically do the same. We learn by example. Young people copy, whether they intend to or not, the words and actions of their parents and other adults in their lives. Every mother or father who pays attention to their children knows this.

As far as a child is concerned, "love" is a four-letter word spelled "T-I-M-E". Parents dramatically increase their influence on their children by spending time with them. This love/time investment builds a bridge of trust between parent and child, and that bridge of trust allows example and teaching to flow from parent to child. As minutes become hours, and hours become days, and days become weeks, and weeks become years, parents will see in their children and hear from their very lips the values those parents have lived and taught. By teaching abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage, moms and dads inoculate their children (especially their daughters) from possibly destructive sex. These parents, by living out and teaching how to have a marriage of love and life, greatly increase the chances of their children enjoying healthy marriages themselves. And then, instead of having to arrest abortionists, lack of demand for their "services" will simply put them out of business.

No to abortion; yes to love and life.


Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

A Way Forward

There is much concern in the Kingdom about the government being able to pay salaries and bills in general. There is much talk about reducing the size of the civil service while keeping service levels high. This is a challenge to accomplish, but may I offer a way that it might be achievable?

Currently it is almost impossible to dismiss an employee, even if they do not work or are engaged in illegal or immoral activities. If a supervisor has a problem with an employee, there is almost nothing that supervisor can do. An investigation is made by the relevant ministry, but usually nothing is done. If the employee is dismissed, the case nearly always ends up in court- an expensive undertaking which the employer rarely wins. This demoralizes the rest of the employees and the supervisors and gives a bad name to all civil servants.

During this challenging time, SNAT and the labor unions might consider a "Three Strikes and You are Out" policy. In such a policy, if a headmaster or supervisor finds an employee's work unsatisfactory, they can report to the ministry and the person will be transferred to another location, department, or supervisor. A person has three chances to provide satisfactory job performance. No single supervisor can make a decision to terminate a civil servant's employment. If, after three chances, the employee is unable or unwilling to provide the nation with quality services, they would be dismissed from the civil service. They would not be allowed to file a case in the labor court against government.

Reports of sleeping employees in the various government offices would plummet, as would reports of teachers having sex with students. "Ghost employees" would vanish from government payrolls.

The nation might consider such a plan for the sake of the large majority of diligent, honest, hardworking civil servants whose names are tarnished by the few unproductive and immoral government employees.

Sincerely,
Ruth Poglitsh