English Muslims

Just My View

I recently read a letter written some time ago by three muslim young men to The Sunday Times about the support by the Muslim community in England for the English football team during the World Cup.

The English flag, St George's Cross, is the flag of the Crusaders who waged war against the Muslims. I never conciously made the connection before but it appears that it was impossible for English Muslims to fly the flag in support of their team as it is offensive to their religion. Is this "offence" commonly perceived or are these views unrepresentative?

I suppose it begs the question is the flag devisive in everyday life leaving football aside?
Does it make acceptance and integration into the wider community more difficult?

wes

I really have no clue what flag the crusaders used and there is nothing within the religion that would find the English flag offensive. Its the English flag and if your English its your flag whether you Muslim or not.

Just My View

If it were as simple as that the Red Cross would be called the Red Cross in Muslim countries and not the Red Crescent.

babyvaio

Just My View wrote:

If it were as simple as that the Red Cross would be called the Red Cross in Muslim countries and not the Red Crescent.

You're right. There is a big difference. In fact, there's a saying reported that the Prophet (saws) was informed by angel Gabriel (as) that an angel will not enter a house if there's a dog inside the house or a cross.

The Christian cross had nothing to do with prophet Jesus (as), in fact there are Prophets (saws) sayings supporting the view that at the end of this world (just before the Day of Judgement) Allah - God Almighty will send Jesus (as) to Earth and Jesus (as) will kill Dajjal (or the anti-Christ ro better to say anti-Jesus) and break the cross and kill the swine/pig.

I think no Muslim should wave any flag with a cross on it. Muslim should never pay much attention to his nationality, it doesn't really matter, Allah created us in different colours and nationalities (read: He gave us different languages and we were born in different countries) so that we could get to know each other. But before Him, we are not divided into nationalities, what counts is belief and deeds, our hearts and what's in them, and not colour of our skin nor the country we are coming from.

BTW, about the letter - I wouldn't really care much about who is represented by that cross on the flag, or whose symbol that is, ones heart should never be dying for any creature but only for her Creator. So it doesn't really matter where are you coming from, what matters is where are you going to (after death).

Hobbes

Just My View wrote:

If it were as simple as that the Red Cross would be called the Red Cross in Muslim countries and not the Red Crescent.

Please do a bit of research. The "red cross" flag has absolutly nothing to do with what you are talking about. The Red cross flag is the reverse flag of Switzerlands flag.

The red cresent flag while denoted in Muslim countries wasn't adopted because the Red cross had anything to do with the Catholic Cross and not because it had anything to do with the crusades.

As Wes has pointed out, if the Muslim is British then there should be no contention with the British flag at all.

babyvaio

Hobbes wrote:

Please do a bit of research. The "red cross" flag has absolutly nothing to do with what you are talking about. The Red cross flag is the reverse flag of Switzerlands flag.

The red cresent flag while denoted in Muslim countries wasn't adopted because the Red cross had anything to do with the Catholic Cross and not because it had anything to do with the crusades.

As Wes has pointed out, if the Muslim is British then there should be no contention with the British flag at all.

The question then is - whose symbol is Suisse's cross on their flag? At the end of the day - it's a cross on the flag so there must be a reason behind it.

the_new_mr

Well, personally speaking, I'd probably feel a little uncomfortable waving a flag or wearing something with a cross on it. In terms of acceptance and integration into the community and stuff, I don't see it as a problem really. A country and community is more than just a flag.

Hobbes

babyvaio wrote:

The question then is - whose symbol is Suisse's cross on their flag? At the end of the day - it's a cross on the flag so there must be a reason behind it.

The Swiss cross is not the Catholic Cross. Both lines are equal size and break in the middle. In a Catholic Cross the break is 3/4 near the top and the vertical line is longer. To a catholic they wouldn't see it as a religous cross.

A quick wiki suggests in the history (it has three histories!) that it may refer to the cross of christ but the Red Cross itself certainly does not.

Seems the Red Cross has some contention anyway, it was initially done to reconise the Swiss as ICRC was created there. However the UN are trying to make the symbol more neutral, which is why we have the UN Diamond symbol. Although you also have the star of david and the red lion symbols as well.

IMHO the cross on the red cross has nothing to do with religon and more to do with peoples attachment to symbols. For example the swastika was used in Hinduism and Buddism before the Nazis got thier hand on it, yet your average person would only see the evil of the Nazis attached to that symbol.

the_new_mr

Hobbes wrote:

For example the swastika was used in Hinduism and Buddism before the Nazis got thier hand on it

WOAH!! Didn't know that!! Learn something new everyday I guess... but that's a whopper!

Just My View

Hobbes wrote:

Please do a bit of research. The "red cross" flag has absolutly nothing to do with what you are talking about. The Red cross flag is the reverse flag of Switzerlands flag.

Please don't be so condescending, no research is required for something that is common knowledge. However if you wish to persue the point the Swiss Flag is indeed based on the Christian Cross.

Link http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/geninf/flag.html

I used the Red Cross, the symbol of an organization above reproach, to find out if it was the cross itself, not what it stood for, that was the problem.

Hobbes

While the Swiss flag has history of such the Red Cross flag doesn't.

babyvaio

Hobbes wrote:

While the Swiss flag has history of such the Red Cross flag doesn't.

Actually - it does. Christians would quickly put 2 & 2 together and would say this - Red - blood is red - Cross - Jesus and the cross, etc. So you could say in theory that Red Cross has a 2000 years old history.

Hobbes

babyvaio wrote:

Actually - it does. Christians would quickly put 2 & 2 together and would say this - Red - blood is red - Cross - Jesus and the cross, etc. So you could say in theory that Red Cross has a 2000 years old history.

No they wouldn't. As I said just because we have different types of crosses they don't all refer to the Christian religon.

2 + 2 = 5

Is this a Christian sum? It has a cross in it.

People see what they want to see. For example if you had no knowledge of Islam then the Cresent you may think has relation to Wicca (It does) if your knowledge was in that area.

Likewise as I said earlier in relation to the swastika.

Rev Hellfire

I must say that the whole issue here seems like it has been contrived, another example of certain factions within the Islamic community (and rightwing media as well) to create a divisiveness where none exists.

The flags of each country will by their nature contain elements of that nations past, and it certainly must be said that England (and the whole British nation as well) does have a strong Christian history and this is reflected in their flags. But this true of Islamic countries as well which rightly include the crescent in their flags, should they be removed as well for fear of hurting the sensibilities of the Spanish and other Mediterranean’s who suffered under moors and their invasions?

I’m curious as to what people like the_new_mr (since you state you would have a problem waving such a flag) feel should be done about the flags? It’s easy to offer criticism without offering a practical solution. Should countries purge their cultures of all references which some may find offensive ?

the_new_mr

No point changing the flag. Just don't have to wave it or wear it that's all. I would say that you can even be proud to see it lifted at a sports event (maybe I'm wrong here) as the flag in such a case represents your country and an achievement.]

Most english people aren't proud of it because of the connection with the crusaders anyway (or at least that's what I think and what I hope).

I'm one of those people that doesn't give very much importance to nationality to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my origins but that's where it stops.

Just on a side note, if any Spanish and/or mediterraneans suffered unjustifiably then it was not Islamic.

county

the_new_mr wrote:

Most english people aren't proud of it because of the connection with the crusaders anyway (or at least that's what I think and what I hope).

can you clarify please as i`ve come up with a numder of different ways to take that comment

babyvaio

the_new_mr wrote:

I'm one of those people that doesn't give very much importance to nationality to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my origins but that's where it stops.

Completely agree here with you the_new_mr. We're proud of our origins and that's it - the same would be if we were born in any other country. i.e. English is not better than Chinese and vice-versa. Or any other. Islam defined who is better in a different way - those who fear Allah (swt) the most are the best, then also those who are the best to their wives and families are the best, etc. This is yet another proof that Islam is universal and perfectly just.

the_new_mr

county wrote:

can you clarify please as i`ve come up with a numder of different ways to take that comment

I mean that, as far as I know, most english are proud of the english flag and the union jack for reasons other than the crusaders. In summary, crusaders are not the reason (or at least I hope so).

Rev Hellfire

the_new_mr wrote:

Just on a side note, if any Spanish and/or mediterraneans suffered unjustifiably then it was not Islamic.

Surely such a statement also applies to the Crusades, if any Jew or Muslim suffered unjustifiably then it wasn't Christian, so now we're all ok with the Christian symbols on flags

I'd totally agree with you that people don't examine the individual elements of their flags.

I think the context of where the flag is used is important, when attending for your country at a football match or any other sporting endeavour the multitude of flags worn and waved is to be expected and can hardly be seen as divisive since its way for people to form a group identity around the team, and religion really to the majority of attendees will not even enter their minds.

the_new_mr

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Surely such a statement also applies to the Crusades, if any Jew or Muslim suffered unjustifiably then it wasn't Christian, so now we're all ok with the Christian symbols on flags

I honestly don't mean to be pedantic or seem attacking/argumentative but the Catholic church themselves admit that the crusades themselves were un-Christian (new word?). So, I accept your statement that if a Muslim or a Jew suffered unjustiafiably then it wasn't Christian but the crusades themselves were very backward to begin with.

This is quite different to the expansion of the Islamic state where the reasons were fine (fighting against oppression and for freedom of religion) but, if anyone suffered unjustifiably (such as a civilian being killed or a POW tortured) then this was un-Islamic. Know what I mean?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I think the context of where the flag is used is important, when attending for your country at a football match or any other sporting endeavour the multitude of flags worn and waved is to be expected and can hardly be seen as divisive since its way for people to form a group identity around the team, and religion really to the majority of attendees will not even enter their minds.

Exactly

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

This is quite different to the expansion of the Islamic state where the reasons were fine (fighting against oppression and for freedom of religion) but, if anyone suffered unjustifiably (such as a civilian being killed or a POW tortured) then this was un-Islamic. Know what I mean?

Not really TBH. "Reasons were fine"? Much has been justified by many on the grounds of "fighting against oppression/freedom of religion" etc. That old chestnut is well polished with use. George Dubya Bush rehashes the same rhetoric so the irony is pointed.

Now Islam may have set down more particular "rules of engagement" and rules for organising a religious empire, which was good but it also laid down more specifics of empire building for God/Allah. Indeed more than most other faiths you care to mention. The expansion of both Christianity and Islam(others too) was pretty much done for the same reasons, aquisition of lands, resources and spreading of the faith. While some Muslim communities in the far East grew on the back of missionary work, most of the Muslim world grew on the back of force of arms. Just like Christian Rome. Two sides, same coin. To suggest otherwise would be naive in the extreme.

New topic maybe.

the_new_mr

You should check your history Wibbs.

Anyway, there's probably no point taking the topic any further. I'll quote something that you'll say is biased, you'll quote something that I'll say is biased and so on and so forth. Also, this isn't really the forum for such discussion.

I will reply to a few things in your post though.

Wibbs wrote:

The expansion of both Christianity and Islam(others too) was pretty much done for the same reasons, aquisition of lands, resources and spreading of the faith.

This is false. The worst of this list of three is the "spreading of the faith". People were never forced to become Muslims. Have you seen the Hamza Yusuf video in the pope thread? Check it out. He makes the very good point that after lands such as Spain were taken back, there were no large Muslim communities left behind. Also, it's very well documented by historians who are Christian that non-Muslims lived peacefully under Muslim rule. I think there's no point bringing up this misconception here again.

Wibbs wrote:

While some Muslim communities in the far East grew on the back of missionary work, most of the Muslim world grew on the back of force of arms.

This is also false. Most Muslims became Muslims because they decided for it for themselves (as is happening wordwide these days). And in the case of the far east (where there is a large Muslim population), most people who became Muslim did so through commerce as they were impressed with the character and honesty of Muslim traders. That's a fact.

The only time force was used were in three cases:
1) Fighting against oppression
2) Self-defense (where fighting must stop if the other side wish for peace)
3) Fight for religious freedom. Every empire was given the option of to either allow Muslims in to talk to people about Islam or battle. What you don't hear about are the states that decided to allow Muslims in and thereafter had Islam spread within them.

In fact, after the peacetreaty at Hudaybaya (where the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) made peace with Mecca under pagan rule for a 10 year period before it was broken my Mecca shortly after), the number of Muslims increased in massive numbers because people were now willing to hear about Islam now that there was peace. Peace always allowed for an easier spreading of Islam so why would the Muslim forces fight and make this more difficult unless it was necessary?

In fact, it's very important to note that God calls the peace treaty a "victory" in the Quran. That's always a good reply to anyone that says Islam is a violent religion. The Quran is very clear on the very high value of peace to the extent that it is called a victory.

To compare the crusades (and even the actions of a stupid texan) with the spreading of the Islamic state is like comparing chalk and cheese. It's a well documented fact that literally thousands and thousands of Muslims, Jews and Orthodox-Christians were slaughtered by the crusaders. Muslim forces could never be accused of such a thing. One example is Salah El-Din. He allowed all Christians to leave Jereusalem peacefully after conquering it.

I really don't mean to spark inter-religious argument here but these are the facts.

Anyway, like I said, probably best to leave this where it is. I can see circles ahead

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

You should check your history Wibbs.

We all should.

Also, it's very well documented by historians who are Christian that non-Muslims lived peacefully under Muslim rule. I think there's no point bringing up this misconception here again.

Again there are two sides to this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Spain#Non-Muslims_.28Dhimmi.29_under_the_Caliphate

One example is Salah El-Din. He allowed all Christians to leave Jereusalem peacefully after conquering it.

Not quite. He only agreed to terms of surrender and give quarter to the crusaders in Jerusalem after Balian threatened to kill the Muslims inside the gates and destroy the Muslim holy sites(Notice there were 1000's of Muslims inside the christian held city and their sites were left alone). Even then he asked for ransom for the release of many of the Christians. Many of those (over 10,000)who couldn't pay were sold into slavery. Slight different slant there I think you'll agree.

Just My View

the_new_mr wrote:

Most english people aren't proud of it because of the connection with the crusaders anyway (or at least that's what I think and what I hope).

Maybe not at a conscious level, but how can the singing of this hymn (see below) at matches, national gatherings etc be discounted as just another hymn? The connection is strong enough IMHO.

Jerusalem - Written by William Blake

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green
And was the holy lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen

And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills
And was Jerusalem builded there
Among those dark Satanic mills

Bring me my bow (my bow) of burning gold
Bring me my arrows of desire
Bring me my spears o'clouds unfold
Bring me my chariot of fire

I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my (my) sword sleep in hand
'Til we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land
'Til we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land

England

the_new_mr

Using wikipedia for history Wibbs? Tsk tsk Beware of the mind-control machine

That's not too good about the hymn (chant). Well, perhaps it's a case of ignorance. Perhaps it's not. Only God knows.

MeditationMom

by the-new-mr- Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbes
For example the swastika was used in Hinduism and Buddism before the Nazis got thier hand on it

WOAH!! Didn't know that!! Learn something new everyday I guess... but that's a whopper!

Yes, and furhtermore, the Nazis turned it, using its mirror image. This is believed to have been a simple mistake. But a creepy one at that, considering what this mirror image swastika represents today.

Schuhart

Just My View wrote:

Maybe not at a conscious level, but how can the singing of this hymn (see below) at matches, national gatherings etc be discounted as just another hymn? The connection is strong enough IMHO

I thought it was inspired by a legend that Jesus visited England in his youth. Hence the lines.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green
And was the holy lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

I thought it was inspired by a legend that Jesus visited England in his youth. Hence the lines.

That was my understanding too. Also the dream of building an ideal "Jerusalem" in englands pleasant land an all that. IMHO it has as much to do with the crusades as a packet of smarties.

Just My View

Given their track record for conquest, which belief is more likely , that Jesus walked in England or that England should rightly exercise dominion over Jerusalem?

Schuhart

I’d say its highly unlikely that Jesus visited England. However, its seems quite certain that the song ‘Jerusalem’ is inspired by the legend that he did. It also seems to be about Blake’s disquiet at the changes he saw the Industrial Revolution making to “England's green and pleasant land”, hence the reference to ‘dark Satanic mills’.

http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/glossary/avalon.html
The lines "Did you ever hear about Jesus walkin', Jesus walkin' down by Avalon?" from "Summertime in England" refer to an ancient legend that Jesus once visited England. References to this legend include a poem by William Blake and the inspirational song "Jerusalem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time
The text of the poem was inspired by the legend that Jesus, while still a young man, accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to the English town of Glastonbury. Blake's biographers note that he believed in this legend;

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/jerusalem/features/and-did-those-feet
The idea of a visit to Britain by Jesus Christ was not invented by William Blake. It has long roots, going all the way back to a medieval monk, called William of Malmesbury.

http://www.poetseers.org/the_poetseers/blake/
Blake hated the effects of the Industrial Revolution in England and looked forward to the establishment of a New Jerusalem "in England's green and pleasant land."

Finally, Here’s a whole bunch of English people singing it. Not a Crusader in sight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk

IT Loser

The English cross is the Saint Georges cross. It is red on a white backround, running left to right with a short vertical and long horizontal sides

The so called Crusader Cross {there never was such a thing} that you are talking about always ran with a longer vertical and shorter horizontal side.

Two totally different designs...and thats assuming that the Crusaders even had a single particular cross.

IT Loser

Wibbs wrote:

We all should.
Again there are two sides to this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Spain#Non-Muslims_.28Dhimmi.29_under_the_Caliphate


Not quite. He only agreed to terms of surrender and give quarter to the crusaders in Jerusalem after Balian threatened to kill the Muslims inside the gates and destroy the Muslim holy sites(Notice there were 1000's of Muslims inside the christian held city and their sites were left alone). Even then he asked for ransom for the release of many of the Christians. Many of those (over 10,000)who couldn't pay were sold into slavery. Slight different slant there I think you'll agree.

Balian explicitly threatened to "break your Army....the like of which you will never raise again"

Salahadin could not hope to win a war of attrition against Balian,so long as Balian resided behind Jerusalems walls- his Agrarian army would desert sooner rather than later to reap the Autumnal harvests on the understanding that they could always try again to take Jerusalem. For Balian to destroy Islamic sites would be to destroy Jewish sites and he was not of that persuasion at all.

Interestingly, in the run up to the Christian conquest of Jerusalem in 1099, the resident Caliph expelled ALL Christians from Jerusalem to avoid what he regarded as their potential complicity in the inevitable siege, and of course to preserve food stocks for the Muslim population. In 1080 the Caliph Hakim had burned the Church of The Holy Sepulchre to the ground.

IT Loser

Wibbs wrote:

Not really TBH. "Reasons were fine"? Much has been justified by many on the grounds of "fighting against oppression/freedom of religion" etc. That old chestnut is well polished with use. George Dubya Bush rehashes the same rhetoric so the irony is pointed.

Now Islam may have set down more particular "rules of engagement" and rules for organising a religious empire, which was good but it also laid down more specifics of empire building for God/Allah. Indeed more than most other faiths you care to mention. The expansion of both Christianity and Islam(others too) was pretty much done for the same reasons, aquisition of lands, resources and spreading of the faith. While some Muslim communities in the far East grew on the back of missionary work, most of the Muslim world grew on the back of force of arms. Just like Christian Rome. Two sides, same coin. To suggest otherwise would be naive in the extreme.

New topic maybe.

Christian Rome?

Rome wasn't Christian for long, and did precious little expanding. Constantinople maybe, Rome never. Christian Romes biggest claim to fame is smashing Atill at Chalons, 453 AD

Wibbs

IT Loser wrote:

Christian Rome?

Rome wasn't Christian for long, and did precious little expanding. Constantinople maybe, Rome never. Christian Romes biggest claim to fame is smashing Atill at Chalons, 453 AD

Point taken. I should have said "Rome" style Christianity if anything.

I should have been more particular about the sites that Balian threatened to destroy, specifically the Dome of the Rock and a mosque I believe whose name escapes me.