First female Muslim member of Pennsylvania House offended by GOP member's prayer before swearing-in

[Yarddog]

Read the full story here at CBS News

I just don't know why she hates Israel so much.

 

[dzheremi]

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about me or my Church from my posts in this thread, this is the response of the officials of my Church in NZ after the recent massacre of Muslims there:

Pictured: Imam Ibrahim Abdul Halim of the Linwood Mosque is embraced by Father Felimoun El-Baramoussy from the Coptic Church in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Monday

Without explicitly stumping for my Church or communion, I believe that this is the proper Christian response, recognizing the human suffering and terrible loss of the Muslim souls that were vicisiously murdered and grieving with Muslims. This says nothing of Islam as a religion, but shows true Christian love towards others. Actions definitely speak louder than words.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Read the full story here at CBS News

Cool. So if this lady opens session with an Islamic prayer where it’s said that all bend to the Islam/Muhammad/Islamic God, then we all know why and absolutely nobody can complain.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about me or my Church from my posts in this thread, this is the response of the officials of my Church in NZ after the recent massacre of Muslims there:

View attachment 253730
Pictured: Imam Ibrahim Abdul Halim of the Linwood Mosque is embraced by Father Felimoun El-Baramoussy from the Coptic Church in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Monday

Without explicitly stumping for my Church or communion, I believe that this is the proper Christian response, recognizing the human suffering and terrible loss of the Muslim souls that were vicisiously murdered and grieving with Muslims. This says nothing of Islam as a religion, but shows true Christian love towards others. Actions definitely speak louder than words.

I know Coptic Christians try to be good, loving Christians and turn the other cheek, even if they are only human and have the same fears and insecurities as any other human being. Their witness is indeed good. They aren't the problem in this discussion. The problem are Christians who think not getting to weaponize religion against Muslims without disapproval is some kind of oppression. It is shameful in the face of real martyrs.

 

[dzheremi]

Is it bashing Muslims to present theological disagreement with them? Again, this was done towards us and the Jews in the Muslim prayer that was also said during the swearing in ceremony, yet the Christian prayer is that which is controversial and an affront to decency and pluralism or whatever.

This is why I put "Breaking News -- Muslim offended by something" in the tags. Apparently only things that Muslims are offended by matter, even if both 'sides' are doing the same thing to one another (the Muslim praying a prayer that is against Christians and Jews, and the Christian praying a prayer that is against Muslims), so both have equal claim to being offended. I don't get it. (By which I mean I do get it, but already posted on it elsewhere in this thread, so I don't want to go over it all again.)

Stop infantilizing Muslims. Just stop it. In America, they can handle it, if you don't get on the hypocritical outrage train with them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Is it bashing Muslims to present theological disagreement with them?

No, of course not. I was not referring to you. But there's no reason to use Jesus as a weapon, either, even if it were theology.

Again, this was done towards us and the Jews in the Muslim prayer that was also said during the swearing in ceremony, yet the Christian prayer is that which is controversial and an affront to decency and pluralism or whatever.

I don't see clear intentionality of that, given that Ms. Johnson-Harrel, who is African-American, is not from the Middle East and may not understand the traditional interpretation. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. According to my religion, it is always safer to do this than to judge someone's intentions needlessly.

 

[dzheremi]

As I already wrote to you, FireDragon76, Mrs. Johnson-Harrel's understanding is not the issue. I'm not meaning to 'blame' her or any particular Muslim, or say that because this is the traditional interpretation of the surah, therefore she believes it or even understands it.

None of that changes the reality that the same thing was done back and forth to each party, yet only one is getting media coverage for her 'offendedness'. I'm merely suggesting we stop this sort of thing. Okay, you're offended. So are we, if we know the traditional interpretation of the surah. So everyone's offended. Get over it. Islam and Christianity simply don't agree and never will. That's no more "bashing Muslims" than what the Muslims read was "bashing Christians and Jews". That's expressing disagreement, which while I personally feel is inappropriate for the ceremony (I agree with those who have said that we should probably get rid of 'show prayers'), is certainly something American adults should be able to deal with in a mature manner without crying to the media and feeding the social media outrage machine.

When everyone is doing the same thing, everyone complaining should shut up.

 

[FireDragon76]

As I already wrote to you, FireDragon76, Mrs. Johnson-Harrel's understanding is not the issue. I'm not meaning to 'blame' her or any particular Muslim, or say that because this is the traditional interpretation of the surah, therefore she believes it or even understands it.

None of that changes the reality that the same thing was done back and forth to each party, yet only one is getting media coverage for her 'offendedness'. I'm merely suggesting we stop this sort of thing. Okay, you're offended. So are we, if we know the traditional interpretation of the surah. So everyone's offended. Get over it. Islam and Christianity simply don't agree and never will. That's no more "bashing Muslims" than what the Muslims read was "bashing Christians and Jews". That's expressing disagreement, which while I personally feel is inappropriate for the ceremony (I agree with those who have said that we should probably get rid of 'show prayers'), is certainly something American adults should be able to deal with in a mature manner without crying to the media and feeding the social media outrage machine.

When everyone is doing the same thing, everyone complaining should shut up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the issue for you is that you believe the media should exegete the Al-Fatihah prayer so that people understand that its actually offensive, even if Ms. Movita Johnson-Harrel did not intend it that way? Can't you at least see how that's probably not a good idea in the current political climate of xenophobia?

I think the solution is to promote liberal values like tolerance and pluralism, not a religious war about who has the nastiest religion.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Repressing their freedom of religion makes you almost as bad as the radical Muslims. They don't ban Christianity typically, but they do make it nearly impossible to practice.

Well, thank God there is freedom of religion in America, which includes Islam and other non-Christian religions, and disgruntled conservative Christians can't do anything about the religious freedom of Muslims or other non-Christians other than loudly complain and repeatedly rant about it.

 

[dzheremi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, the issue for you is that you believe the media should exegete the Al-Fatihah prayer so that people understand that its actually offensive, even if Ms. Movita Johnson-Harrel did not intend it that way?

I think that a Muslim being offended by a Christian prayer shouldn't be presented at all (i.e., Muslims being offended by stuff isn't actually news), and if it must be then it should be put in proper context where it is shown that what the Muslims are offended by is something that they are also doing in the very same venue.

As it is, it reads like "Christian picks on Muslim lady by 'weaponizing' a prayer" (which isn't even wrong; again, I have a hard time believing that this was unintentional), when a more realistic report would be "Christians and Muslims shamefully use a government swearing in ceremony to take theological digs at each other's religions".

I don't really think that involves deep exegesis of the Qur'an or anything. It would take one sentence to say that the Muslim prayer which was read is traditionally understood to refer to Christians as 'those who have gone astray' and to Jews as 'those who have drawn God's anger'. (See, I just did it myself in one sentence.)

The way it is presented is dishonest and arguably framed in an infantilizing manner that makes everyone look like idiots, albeit for different reasons. I'm only suggesting that they should be made to look like idiots for the same reason, since they're both doing the same thing (whether the representative is aware of that or not).

 

[JosephZ]

Deleted

 

[JosephZ]

Is it bashing Muslims to present theological disagreement with them? Again, this was done towards us and the Jews in the Muslim prayer that was also said during the swearing in ceremony, yet the Christian prayer is that which is controversial and an affront to decency and pluralism or whatever.

This is why I put "Breaking News -- Muslim offended by something" in the tags. Apparently only things that Muslims are offended by matter, even if both 'sides' are doing the same thing to one another (the Muslim praying a prayer that is against Christians and Jews, and the Christian praying a prayer that is against Muslims), so both have equal claim to being offended. I don't get it.

The al Fatiha shouldn't be taken as an offensive prayer by Christians and Jews. In fact, this prayer has been recited countless times at the state and national level of government for decades and even at the US Capital in front of the House of Representatives.

While it's true that the prayer is referring to Christians and Jews as those "who have brought down wrath and who wander astray," the reason it shouldn't be offensive is because it's not talking about all Christians and Jews as the verses below will clearly show.

Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously—will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. (Qur'an 2:62)

They are not alike. Among the People of the Scripture is a community that is upright; they recite God’s revelations throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves. (Qur'an 3:113)

Had they observed the Torah, and the Gospel, and what was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed amply from above them, and from beneath their feet. Among them is a moderate community, but evil is what many of them are doing. (Qur'an 5:66)

Here's a commentary from Islamic Scholar Muhammad Asad that goes into more detail:

According to almost all the commentators, God's "condemnation" (ghadab, lit., "wrath") is synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself by wilfully rejecting God's guidance and acting contrary to His injunctions. Some commentators (e.g., Zamakhshari) interpret this passage as follows: "... the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings - those who have not been condemned [by Thee], and who do not go astray": in other words, they regard the last two expressions as defining "those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings". Other commentators (e.g., Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) do not subscribe to this interpretation - which would imply the use of negative definitions - and understand the last verse of the surah in the manner rendered by me above. As regards the two categories of people following a wrong course, some of the greatest Islamic thinkers (e.g., Al-Ghazali or, in recent times, Muhammad Abduh) held the view that the people described as having incurred "God's condemnation" - that is, having deprived themselves of His grace - are those who have become fully cognizant of God's message and, having understood it, have rejected it; while by "those who go astray" are meant people whom the truth has either not reached at all, or to whom it has come in so garbled and corrupted a form as to make it difficult for them to recognize it as the truth (see 'Abduh in Manar 1,68 ff.)

Full text of "55877864 54484011 Message Of Quran Muhammad Asad Islam Translation"

 

[dzheremi]

The al Fatiha shouldn't be taken as an offensive prayer by Christians and Jews. In fact, this prayer has been recited countless times at the state and national level of government for decades and even at the US Capital in front of the U.S. House of Representatives.

While the prayer is referring to Christians and Jews as those "who have brought down wrath and who wander astray," The reason it should not be offensive is because it's not talking about all Christians and Jews as the verses below will clearly show.

Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously—will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. (Qur'an 2:62)

They are not alike. Among the People of the Scripture is a community that is upright; they recite God’s revelations throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves. (Qur'an 3:113)

Had they observed the Torah, and the Gospel, and what was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed amply from above them, and from beneath their feet. Among them is a moderate community, but evil is what many of them are doing. (Qur'an 5:66)

Here's a commentary from Islamic Scholar Muhammad Asad that goes into more detail:

According to almost all the commentators, God's "condemnation" (ghadab, lit., "wrath") is synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself by wilfully rejecting God's guidance and acting contrary to His injunctions. Some commentators (e.g., Zamakhshari) interpret this passage as follows: "... the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings - those who have not been condemned [by Thee], and who do not go astray": in other words, they regard the last two expressions as defining "those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings". Other commentators (e.g., Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) do not subscribe to this interpretation - which would imply the use of negative definitions - and understand the last verse of the surah in the manner rendered by me above. As regards the two categories of people following a wrong course, some of the greatest Islamic thinkers (e.g., Al-Ghazali or, in recent times, Muhammad Abduh) held the view that the people described as having incurred "God's condemnation" - that is, having deprived themselves of His grace - are those who have become fully cognizant of God's message and, having understood it, have rejected it; while by "those who go astray" are meant people whom the truth has either not reached at all, or to whom it has come in so garbled and corrupted a form as to make it difficult for them to recognize it as the truth (see 'Abduh in Manar 1,68 ff.)

Full text of "55877864 54484011 Message Of Quran Muhammad Asad Islam Translation"

I do not care about Muhammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an or what he thinks; he is not an authority, but al Tabari, ibn Kathir, al Tirmidhi, etc. are -- and they all say that it is a reference to Christians and Jews. The "Not all Christians/Jews" defense doesn't matter, as what matters is how it is taken by the Islamic community based on the classical tafsir and other resources (not Asad).

You can tell me that I shouldn't find it offensive based on the interpretation of a European Jewish Islamophile convert, but that's just you trying to make Islam seem better than it is. As I said several pages ago, that behavior needs to stop.

.

 

[friend of]

Redefine that properly (because, yes, Muslims have been and are specifically targeted in some cases purely because they are Muslim; we have seen that) and then we will have the level playing field we must have to show Islamists and Islam the door

In a fair world, this is a sensible idea. But Islam always takes advantage of this approach, because Islam advocates that they are are war with everyone else and Taquiyya grants the adherent permission to attack and take advantage of the infidel in any way possible to destabilize and establish caliphate. They will simply never acknowledge that they are being treated fair, even if it happens to be true, because this victim card gives them the capital needed to grieve for more protection/privileges indefinitely.

Personally, I cannot imagine Jesus running a theocracy. As my religion teaches, God's kingdom is the gentle reign of grace in the human heart.

Well, the most important commandments make it pretty clear God does not accept any false religions, idols, or misdirected worship. He is jealous over it.

 

[dzheremi]

In a fair world, this is a sensible idea. But Islam always takes advantage of this approach, because Islam advocates that they are are war with everyone else and Taquiyya grants the adherent permission to attack and take advantage of the infidel in any way possible to destabilize and establish caliphate.

I don't think taqiyya is nearly as prevalent as many non-Muslims seem to think it is, as there are specific aspects of it that don't really fit many of the situations in which it is assumed to be happening. I'm not a Muslim so it's not really anything to me either way, but here is an ex-Muslim secularist from Iraq explaining it (video; discussion begins at 0:33 and ends at 3:52; the rest is promotional, which is why I'm not putting it up as a video, since I got in trouble once for putting up a video that had promotional content at the end of it that I was not aware of), if you or anyone else is interested. The take home point is "Stop calling everything taqiyya, because it probably isn't that",

They will simply never acknowledge that they are being treated fair, even if it happens to be true, because this victim card gives them the capital needed to grieve for more protection/privileges indefinitely.

This is very true. Islam seems to thrive on grievance. Maybe that's why it's so popular with prisoners, who often have chips on their shoulders.

 

[JosephZ]

I do not care about Muhammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an or what he thinks; he is not an authority, but al Tabari, ibn Kathir, al Tirmidhi, etc. are -- and they all say that it is a reference to Christians and Jews. The "Not all Christians/Jews" defense doesn't matter, as what matters is how it is taken by the Islamic community based on the classical tafsir and other resources (not Asad).

That is exactly how it is taken by the majority in the Islamic community. I have been studying Islam for 30+ years, I have visited several majority Muslim countries, lived in one, and I'm currently a missionary who works among Muslims. I know Muslims on four continents and I interact with Muslims every time I walk out my front door. I can say with confidence that the al Fatiha is not intended to be offensive to Christians and Jews.

You can tell me that I shouldn't find it offensive based on the interpretation of a European Jewish Islamophile convert, but that's just you trying to make Islam seem better than it is.

Ask yourself this, if this prayer were offensive to Christians as you believe it is, how has this prayer been allowed to be recited in predominantly Christian countries all over the world in all types of settings for as long as it has? Why hasn't someone figured this out yet and put a stop to it being recited, especially in government institutions or state sponsored events? Is it possible that your interpretation is incorrect?

 

[dzheremi]

That is exactly how it is taken by the majority in the Islamic community. I have been studying Islam for 30+ years, I have visited several majority Muslim countries, lived in one, and I'm currently a missionary who works among Muslims. I know Muslims on four continents and I interact with Muslims every time I walk out my front door. I can say with confidence that the al Fatiha is not intended to be offensive to Christians and Jews.

It has nothing to do with your credentials as far as living among Muslims is concerned. I also live among them. One of my neighbors in this apartment complex two doors down is a Muslim, for instance, and one of my city's main mosques (there are over a dozen, as it's a major city) is less than four miles away from me.

The problem is in your thinking, which is apparently "It's not intended to be offensive -- therefore it shouldn't be taken as offensive/isn't actually offensive". Not only do you not get to decide for others what is offensive based on your own work or understanding or whatever, some things are inherently offensive insofar as they directly contradict and insult the faith we have in Christ. This is one of those things. Islam itself is one of those things.

The same thing that you are saying could be said about the prayer given by the GOP representative with regard to Islam: That every person shall recognize Christ eventually is not an insult to those who do not do so now, yet some (like this Muslim representative) take it to be so.

Would you then say that this representative or any other Muslim ought not be offended by it on that account? Something tells me you wouldn't, but I hope I'm wrong.

Ask yourself this, if this prayer were offensive to Christians as you believe, how has this prayer been allowed to be recited in predominantly Christian countries all over the world in all types of settings for as long as it has? Why hasn't someone figured this out yet and put a stop to it being recited, especially in government institutions or state sponsored events? Is it possible that your interpretation is incorrect?

Again, it's not my interpretation -- it's the interpretation of classical commentators like ibn Kathir and al Tabari, who are major mainstream Sunni sources for the interpretation of the Qur'an.

As for "Why hasn't anyone figured this out yet?" or "Why has this been allowed for so long?", I think the answers are obvious:

1) Most non-Muslims haven't read the Muslim sources like the tafsir, the hadith, or even the Qur'an

2) Christian-majority countries are generally societies that can handle disagreement and insult without crying about it like a bunch of babies, and believe that it is better to allow offense if it preserves freedom of religion and thought (for the religious and the non-religious alike) than to squash it in the name of preserving others' feelings. Or at least it has been for the majority of my life (it seems like this has changed with regard to Islam specifically in the wake of 9/11, as we really don't want to be seen as "racist" and to idiots who likely don't know any Muslim, "Muslim" is a race)

Point #2 is the entire reason I started this thread. I want this to continue to be the case, so I don't think it is wise to give in to the offendedness of any particular group, and frankly I'm tired of hearing about Muslims' precious feelings for their stupid Satanic religion and its evil prophet and his moronic book, as though they are made out of something different than the rest of us and get to have more feelings than we do and have everyone bend to them.

In reality, if the Islamic people and their religious leaders really cared so much about the feelings of anyone but Muslims, they would be issuing major apologies to all non-Muslims for the present and historical injustices they have done in the name of their God-cursed religion of falsehood.

I am of the Abouna Zakariya school of dishing it out as they do in the Middle East, because in my own experience in dealing with Muslims (which happens quite a bit when you join a Middle Eastern church; I'm still kinda surprised...never been to so many Iraqi and Palestinian businesses until I accepted baptism...), they really don't respect the limp and squishy "kumbaya/same god/we see the qur'an as a revelation" western approach to evangelism.

What is even the point of freedom of speech if you can't actually say things as they are?

 

[☦Marius☦]

I'm more disturbed by the people on this forum who thinks a Muslim should be subjected to being part of a meeting where they are told every knee will bow to someone they think is just a prophet.

We are a secular democracy. I find it interesting so many defend that in one breath while calling for the law to basically eliminate freedom of religion in the same breath. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Tell me would you want a majority Muslim council doing Muslim prayer calls? No I didn't think so. Prayers should be in private.

 

[danielmears]

Rep. Movita has a right to her own opinion here in America, unlike the Christians being slaughtered around the world for simply being Christians. So, she can be thankful for that.

 

[Philip_B]

I'm more disturbed by the people on this forum who thinks a Muslim should be subjected to being part of a meeting where they are told every knee will bow to someone they think is just a prophet.

We are a secular democracy. I find it interesting so many defend that in one breath while calling for the law to basically eliminate freedom of religion in the same breath. Hypocrisy at it's finest. Tell me would you want a majority Muslim council doing Muslim prayer calls? No I didn't think so. Prayers should be in private.

I think you make the point well, save I think we (as in Both the USA and Australia) are not so much secular democracies as Secular/Pluralist Democracies. People are free to follow the faith of their conviction or to derive their understanding of what is right from whatever source the choose. The social contract implied in this is that our freedoms should not impinge on the freedoms of others. The foundation of the position held by those who went before us was largely in the Judeo/Christian Tradition, and the is a lasting legacy from that.

Rep. Movita has a right to her own opinion here in America, unlike the Christians being slaughtered around the world for simply being Christians. So, she can be thankful for that.

I take that point, very seriously, however in light of the tragic events in New Zealand this month, we should remember that it is not simply Christian who have been slaughtered for their religious position.