Falwell calls THE Mohammed a terrorist.
October 4, 2002 9:11 AM   Subscribe

Falwell calls THE Mohammed a terrorist. But it's not the first time he's offered this sick, and truly twisted opinion. On his site we find this gem. How long will it take for his people to give up, and step back to let the snipers have a better shot?
posted by Dome-O-Rama (48 comments total)

 
Well, to be fair to the guy, he was kind of cornered into saying that. He's not nearly as bad as Franklin Graham and other who have launched an all-out attack on Islam. But unfortunate, nonetheless.

Holy shit, was I just fair to Falwell? I need my morning coffee.
posted by laz-e-boy at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2002


Or: How To Minimize If Not Nullify The Report Of One Man's Nasty Intolerance By (Even Jokingly) Calling For His Assassination.
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:21 AM on October 4, 2002


According to all Muslim scholars (especially in Sahih Muslim) the temporary, contractual marriage was made lawful by Muhammad simply to satisfy the sexual passions of his soldiers. The “marriage” only had to last 3 days, after which the woman could be deserted and left without any rights. Only the fact that it is temporary a “marriage” separates it from outright fornication and adultery (forbidden in Islam), but there is practically no difference. It was practiced during the beginning of the Islamic era (during the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Ibn Abu ‘Umar) and is continued in practice today by over 100 million Shi’ite Muslims worldwide.

Concerning this practice the following Islamic authority states:

“While in the army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, ‘You have been allowed to have Muta (“pleasure”), so do it.’ If a man and a woman agree to marry temporarily, their marriage should last for three nights …”

Source: Sahih al-Bukbari, part 7, p. 37.



KICK ASS!
posted by delmoi at 9:24 AM on October 4, 2002


Newsfilter.
posted by interrobang at 9:24 AM on October 4, 2002


continued in practice today by over 100 million Shi'ite Muslims worldwide

Hard to see how this is possible seeing that temporary marraige is banned in every Muslim country, including Iran, home of most of the world's Shi'as.
posted by laz-e-boy at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2002


The best biography of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that I have read is Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, by Martin Lings. It is authoritative, extensively footnoted. Another excellent biography is Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam, by Hajjah Amina Adil. It is more of a hagiography, less concerned with historical documentation and more with presenting the Prophet's life in the English language the way he is understood and respected in Islam traditionally.
posted by BinGregory at 9:28 AM on October 4, 2002


Can you say "fatwa"? Knew you could.
posted by alumshubby at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2002


laz-e-boy: polygamy is banned in Utah, too. Guess it never happens there anymore, huh?

And, there has been talk (no, I'm not going to link it. It's been here before) of temporary marriage being resurrected as law in a couple of places. Probably won't get anywhere, but there it is.
posted by dwivian at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2002


I would recommend that people read Muhammed by Karen Armstrong. A fascinating and interesting work, and I would have to say a must-read in today's times.

BinGregory appears to have far more knowlege than me, but I have read a few 'western' accounts of the Prophet, and Armstrong's was the most interesting that I discovered. It's also great because it traces the relatioship the West has had with Islam through history.
posted by cell divide at 9:53 AM on October 4, 2002


I'm still trying to get a good definition of terrorism and terrorist.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2002


Calling Mohammed a terrorist may be stretching it, but he did sleep with underage girls and slaughter a whole bunch of innocent people, so he's hardly someone I would worship.

Not that the Christian God does much better in their Bible, of course, or indeed atheist altruists such as the international and national socialists in historic reality.
posted by dagny at 10:03 AM on October 4, 2002


I am not trolling but was Mohommed not a noted warrior and a person of conquest. I don't know the topic well enough and would be open to being corrected...
posted by Coop at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2002


As Eugene Volokh pointed out yesterday, there's an awful lot of smiting going on in the OT.
posted by thomas j wise at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2002


laz-e-boy: Sorry, but temporary marriage (mut'a) is indeed legal in Iran. Here's an article by Elaine Sciolino describing the situation at ground level (as it were), and here is a Q&A from a Shi'a site. There is an excellent book by Shahla Haeri on temporary marriage in Iran if you want to learn more.
posted by languagehat at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2002


My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.
Now excuse me, I've got someone to kill...
posted by 2sheets at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2002


laz-e-boy: Prostitution is banned in most of the US, so obviously we know that hookers don't exist.
posted by Cerebus at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2002


It's a fairly reasonable assertion that Muhammad was a "man of war", the Koran says as much. Calling him a terrorist is the kind of nonsense that explains why the vast majority of christians ignore Falwell as a self-righteous blowhard that has as much to do with christianity as 60 second ramen noodles do with the cooking of Ming Tsai. The might share some influences, but the similarities stop there.

It's mighty unchristian of me, but the good reverend Falwell can 'stick it' in such a fashion as to be an "abomination unto the lord".
posted by revbrian at 10:44 AM on October 4, 2002


Calling Mohammed a terrorist may be stretching it, but he did sleep with underage girls and slaughter a whole bunch of innocent people, so he's hardly someone I would worship.

Um, er.

Muslims worship Allah, not Mohammed. Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, the last in a line of prophets that include Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. I've always understood the Muslim relationship with Mohammed to be similar to that of Catholics and the various saints--veneration, not worship. But it's been 10 years since that class I took in Islam, so I don't have as firm a grasp on the details as I'd like.

I'd also like to point out that during Mohammed's lifetime, Christians were also busily doing the same things you mention, dagny. Sleeping with underage girls and slaughtering innocent people. Of course, "underage" is, I would suspect, a fairly modern concept. It's silly, I think, to look back over a history and condemn people for doing things that were socially acceptable then but aren't now.
posted by eilatan at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2002


What is the point of posting opinions of some right wing fundamentalist named Farwell, to me he is no less than a Taliban officer, his is racist, he spreads hatred, he does not allow women to choose abortion, he is a born-again Christian, coming from a family where dad was an alcoholic (but a successful businessman, which in the western world usually he was a well respected child abuser and mostly a wife beater) I suggest a strong dose of therapy for this guy.

"there is only one nation - the nation of Humanity;
there is only one language - the language of the Heart;
there is only one religion - the religion of Love;
and there is one and only God - and He is omnipresent. "

~Sai Baba

AT THIS MOMEMT AS I AM POSTING THIS A JEW FROM ISRAEL IS KILLING A CHILD IN THE WEST BANK, ALSO AT THIS MOMENT A WOMAN IN IRAQ IS CRYING BECAUSE HER CHILD DIED FROM A US BOMB

AS FAR AS I LOOK AROUND THE WORLD AT DIFFERENT CONTINENTS I CAN SEE THE SUFFERING OF PEOPLE IN AFRICA, SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA, NATIVES IN AUSTRALIA AND UNITED STATES ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING FROM THE COLONIALISM THOUGHT ONE RELIGION AND THAT WAS CHRISTIANITY !

THEIR CULTURE, VALUES ALL OF IT WAS TAKEN AWAY IN THE NAME OF CHRIST....
posted by bureaustyle at 11:01 AM on October 4, 2002


My bad if mu'ta is legal in Iran (I honestly thought it wasn't). But that doesn't translate into 100 million people practicing it.
posted by laz-e-boy at 11:06 AM on October 4, 2002


Who is this person?
posted by matteo at 11:06 AM on October 4, 2002


Someone who needs psychological counseling?
posted by dhoyt at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2002


I'd also like to point out that during Mohammed's lifetime, Christians were also busily doing the same things you mention, dagny. Sleeping with underage girls and slaughtering innocent people. Of course, "underage" is, I would suspect, a fairly modern concept. It's silly, I think, to look back over a history and condemn people for doing things that were socially acceptable then but aren't now.

I know they did it too, and I shake my head at them with an equal fervor. You see, In contrast to you, I think it's quite right to condemn people for deliberately killing innocents and raping 9-year-olds, no matter the context. The same applies the other way as well, of course; I think it's wonderful to do quite a few things which are not socially acceptable today.

Historical relativism vs. Objectivism.
posted by dagny at 11:21 AM on October 4, 2002


The minister said he would never state his opinion in a sermon or book.

"I've said often and many places that most Muslims are people of peace and want peace and tranquility for their families and abhor terrorism," Falwell said. "Islam, like most faiths, has a fringe of radicals who carry on bloodshed wherever they are. They do not represent Islam."


As much as I think he's a media-fed ass for using the word "terrorist," I think the response was massaged out of him, and his general stance doesn't strike me as particularly extreme given the wider idiocy of his beliefs. The quote from him I've just cited is vastly less incendiary, even balanced, almost, coming from him.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:24 AM on October 4, 2002


Muhammad (PBUH) is the Prophet of Allah. Allah is same as the Jewish and Christian God. We just call him Allah. What differentiates Christianity from Islam is how the respectve messengers of God are viewed. We view Muhammad(PBUH) as a human being who was closer to God (Allah) than other human beings, a chosen one, but nonetheless a human being. We do not worship him. We worship Allah alone. Monotheism is at the root of Islam. No worshipping any one but Allah. On the other hand Christianity celeberates the concept of Trinity.

In effect the Quran mentiones Jesus Christ (PBUH) more than it talks about Muhammad (PBUH). And one of the basic pillars of Islam is to believe in all the previous Prophets and the holy Scripts meaning Bible, Taurah, Zaboor etcetra. Never in my upbringing or in my environment have I heard any Muslim even jokingly passing a stupid remark about any of the Prophets and the message itself.

As long as people like Farwell and Graham are concerned, I dont worry about what they say. What I worry about are the kind of people who they accompany.

In my opinion one big reason for the Christian right's support of Israel is Biblical belief that Jesus Christ (PBUH) will not return until the Jews have full control of Israel. Well recently the US Congress has passed a bill to accept occupied Al Quds as the Israeli capital instead of Tel Aviv. The US consulate will be moved to the new capital. The rhetoric by Farwell and his peers and this silent move by congress all indicate that the big push for control is about to start any time now.
posted by adnanbwp at 11:37 AM on October 4, 2002


... doesn't strike me as particularly extreme given the wider idiocy of his beliefs

too funny.

CBS released a partial transcript. Given the longer Falwell quote in the article, I suspect it includes only the most incendiary of comments, designed to do just what it has done: get everyone excited and generate ratings.

Unfortunately, I think it might say more about 60 Minutes than it does Falwell. But I'll actually wait to see the whole interview -- i know, novel concept -- before drawing any conclusions.
posted by probablysteve at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2002


It is curious that so many people get so carried away by what the folks of so many years ago are said to have done, when in fact there was not historical objectivity or anything approximating it back then...What the various biggies may or may not have done ought not be taken as all that important but rather we ought to focus upon what this or that group or people are doing today in the name of something that goes way back in time. Not what I say but what I do, sort of thing.
posted by Postroad at 12:02 PM on October 4, 2002


dagny, I'm not saying that I think it's fabulous that innocent people got slaughtered and that children engaged in physical relationships with adults (whether or not they could consent to the relationship is another discussion altogether) in the 7th century, just that, gee, it was 1400 years ago and maybe we shouldn't make blanket judgments using modern attitudes.

Up until fairly recently in human history, females have married and had children at what we (speaking from an American perspective here) would consider to be extremely young ages. Our biology allows for us to conceive children as young adolescents, which is the biological reason for sex. Age of consent is a social construct, and I would argue, a relatively recent one.

At any rate, this is all irrelevant to the link.

I have issues with people who pick and choose bits of texts and quote them out of context to make their point, which is what it appears Falwell has done on the page on his site. I could very easily do the same with, say, some of the biographicalmaterial I have about W.B. Yeats (at one point he asked 15-year-old Iseult Gonne--daughter of Maud Gonne--to marry him), but that would be dishonest and disingenuous besides.

[On preview, what Postroad said.]
posted by eilatan at 12:03 PM on October 4, 2002


It is curious that so many people get so carried away by what the folks of so many years ago are said to have done, when in fact there was not historical objectivity or anything approximating it back then...What the various biggies may or may not have done ought not be taken as all that important but rather we ought to focus upon what this or that group or people are doing today in the name of something that goes way back in time. Not what I say but what I do, sort of thing.

agreed. we discount the likes of herodotus, but somehow think the figures of judaism/christianity/islam are exempt from the ravages of time and the vagaries of human recollection? history is mostly horseshit. what we think we remember stinks.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:13 PM on October 4, 2002


It is curious that so many people get so carried away by what the folks of so many years ago are said to have done

Postroad nailed it there. Why are we so obsessed with the distant past? "My ancestor was a king of England!" Yes, and several thousand others were reeking peasants. Who are you? "My people owned this land 2000 years ago!" Yes, and others owned it before them, and yet others after them. So? It doesn't excuse what you're doing today.
posted by languagehat at 12:13 PM on October 4, 2002


I'm especially charmed by the fact that one poster in this thread quoted Sai Baba - a charlatan who has been accused of murdering underage boys while having sex with them.

Anyone else starting to think that the major media are just trolling when they give face time to Falwell et al?
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2002


historical objectivity or anything approximating it

Vibing on the various comments about historicity, some may find the Thesaurus Islamicus and the Sunnah Project of interest.
posted by BinGregory at 12:26 PM on October 4, 2002


I'm especially charmed by the fact that one poster in this thread quoted Sai Baba - a charlatan who has been accused of murdering underage boys while having sex with them.

Link, please, your anti-holiness.
posted by interrobang at 12:26 PM on October 4, 2002


There are 2 Sai Baba's. I am not sure who the quote is from, and you are quite correct, Nicolae, the current (rather younger) one is a complete charlatan and sexual abuser (what is it with religious men and young boys anyway?). Not sure if there's any creepy history on the old one, ah well off to google...
posted by bittennails at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2002


I love the way Falwell pulls out the "murder of Jews" thing. 400 years *after* the episode he mentions, Christian crusaders under Godfrey de Bouillon slaughtered and burned alive thousands of people - including both Muslims and Jews - when they took Jerusalem.

400 years after *that*, Christian Spain forced Jews to either convert, leave Spain or die. Who welcomed them with an imperial decree? The Ottoman Sultan.

There are no words to describe the evil of the "Islam is a bad religion" argument.
posted by mediareport at 12:33 PM on October 4, 2002 [1 favorite]


Start here, interrobang.
posted by bittennails at 12:41 PM on October 4, 2002


it appears that the media is trolling for ratings when they face time to Falwell.

Mohommad was a man of war but so was King David. Both him and his son Solomon have had some moral lapses...
posted by Coop at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2002


and we wonder why "they" hate us.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2002


I can't believe this guy is even relevent to talk about.
posted by ZupanGOD at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2002


They wonder we why hate them.
posted by chaz at 4:27 PM on October 4, 2002


Who's 'they' remind me again?

It does seem like they were trying to force a response, and that says more about media sensationalism than it does about Falwell.

Of course he might not have always good things to say about the opposition; he's a fundamental Christian. And as much as I disagree with his position about history, facts, and religion, I wouldn't expect him to get up before every meeting and say "Well, folks, this is only why I believe, but. . ." Does he have a view point that some may consider reprehensible? Sure. Do some Moslems have the same for some Christian figures? Well, the problem is Islam is an outreach of Christianity, so many of the Biblical figures are Islamic ones too. But be sure most of them like Ishmael more than Isaac.

"So Mr. Falwell, do you believe in this Bible stuff?"
"Well, yes, I do. . ."
Next Day: Falwell supports Thousands of Years of Violence

Seriously folks, what do you expect him to say?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:47 PM on October 4, 2002


interrobang - sorry to be slow getting back to you.
bittennails - thanks for picking up the slack.

Perhaps the most significantly researched take on the Sai Baba Accusations would be B. Premanand's book, Murder in Sai Baba's Bedroom, from which here are some excerpts.

I tend to place more credence with Premanand than with Sai Baba's defenders, having known a handful of deluded fools who included reverence for Sai Baba in their various follies, but I can't claim to be entirely sure. I mentioned it purely because I found it amusing in this context that he should be quoted.
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 7:40 PM on October 4, 2002


Calling Mohammed a terrorist may be stretching it, but he did sleep with underage girls and slaughter a whole bunch of innocent people, so he's hardly someone I would worship.


Well, the old testament christian diety was also pretty quick to smote the heathen. And his henchmen, notably Moses, didn't make any bones against following his orders, even when they meant killing women and children. So, making the case that Yawey was a terrorist wouldn't be hard either.

Neither one of them (and perhaps this is your point) are worthy of worship.
posted by wheat at 4:02 AM on October 5, 2002


My point exactly, wheat.
posted by dagny at 5:18 AM on October 5, 2002


If you're not atheist, you're going to burn.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:20 AM on October 5, 2002


Many fail to realize that most religous doctrine that was used to persecute others wasn't an act of God, but the faulty understanding of MEN. God is not the one on trial. All of mankind is...
posted by Spaz_X at 12:57 PM on October 5, 2002


For what it's worth (9 days after the last post), Falwell has apologized for his remark. Note: I don't like the guy, but I just think it's fair to include this in the "record."
posted by pardonyou? at 10:10 AM on October 14, 2002


I wouldn't have seen the apology if you hadn't, pardonyou?, so thanks.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on October 14, 2002


« Older Not really funny, but fun....  |  A Survivor's Guide for Preside... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments