"Islamophobia"

In this article by Omer Bin Abdullah (March/April), Mr. Abdullah tries to convince people that the religion of Islam is one of peace and goodness. No doubt there are many good people in Islam, but their religion is not one of peace. Their book, the Holy Quran, speaks on this topic.

In Sura 9:29 one reads: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya [footnote: 'the root meaning is compensation . . . a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam . . . '] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (All quotes from the Holy Quran, text, translation, and commentary, A. Yusuf Ali.)

From Sura 61:4 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array."

Of those deemed hypocrites: "Wherever they are found they will be seized and slain." Followers of Muhammad are told to "seize them and kill them wherever you find them." (Suras 33:60-61; 4:89)

All of this is in great contrast to the teaching of Jesus Christ. He said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44). We are also commanded to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).

MICHAEL GARRISON

Parrish, Alabama

While I do agree with Omer Bin Abdullah that many Islamic Americans have been unjustly discriminated against, he does not point out that there are legitimate reasons for distrust, disdain, and outright hatred of the Islamic religion and those who are adherents must be watched closely.

Many Muslims like Abdullah try to portray the Islamic religion as one of peace when he selectively quotes the Koran (which for Muslims is the infallible Word of God and must be obeyed without question) in Sura 49:13: "O humankind! We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other [not that you may despise each other]."

Do devout Muslims like Abdullah also agree with the Koran's teachings that appear to promote hatred and even bloodshed toward non-Muslims? The Koran also teaches in Sura 5:33: "Those that make war against God and His apostles [those who resist Islam] and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country."

"Love thy neighbor" is not encouraged when one reads Sura 5:51: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers."

Where is the promotion of religious liberty to those who might disagree with the Koran on the doctrine of the Trinity when one reads Sura 5:73: "Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is one of three.' There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." What a contrast to the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, "I never considered a difference of opinion . . . in religion, . . . as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

It is pretty hard not to be "Islamophobic" when one reads Sura 9:5: "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters [i.e. infidels] wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."

It must be remembered that while the U.S. Constitution states in Article VI; Sec. 3 that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" a person's membership in any social organization creates some presumption of agreement with the principles of that organization. If a church teaches certain principles and policies that are contrary to American constitutional policies, a candidate's membership in that church is highly relevant to his/her fitness for public office.

JOHN CLUBINE

Ontario, Canada

Kosher Law

In reading the article "Overdone" (January/February), I was struck by the ignorance of the writer as to the purpose and laws of Kashrut. Please do not misconstrue the usage of the word ignorance in a negative manner. There is simply a lack of understanding.

Kashrut is an extremely important concept to religious Jews. So much so that the United States has passed laws in order to carefully define how and when the word kosher can be used. The writer of the article fails to appreciate that the word kosher has a very definite meaning. The very word is a Hebrew word and has no other literal meaning, notwithstanding the fact that many of us use it to connote something as being acceptable and/or proper.

I imagine that for Mr. Barghout to have been prosecuted for his failure to observe Kashrut, he must have been warned that he should not prepare and sell the food in the manner that he did. Furthermore, according to the author, he "spent many years in court fighting this law." Why would he have advertised the food as kosher, then not prepared it correctly, and then spent years fighting kosher law?

As they say, something doesn't sound kosher to me about this affair. The author does not seem to appreciate that, to a religious Jew, failure to properly prepare kosher food would be tantamount to selling Perrier as "holy water" to a religious Christian. It is fraud. The author's conclusionary statements about Kashrut and about the structure of the laws (as she has presented them) are both self-righteous and incorrect.

MICHAEL A. WATERMAN, Attorney

Encino, California

Anti-Catholicism?

I have enjoyed reading your magazine even when I disagreed with you. You describe yourself as a "magazine of religious freedom," and most of your articles, true to that mission, address the necessity of separation of church and state, for the ultimate good of both. I have assumed that you are speaking on behalf of all religions in arguing for independence from the state.

I was therefore puzzled at your strong condemnation of recent efforts by Catholic and Protestant Christians at healing centuries of division, principally the documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Gift of Salvation (Iambs & Pentameters, March/April). As far as I can tell, neither of these is a threat to anyone's religious liberty, nor do they concern the relationship between church and state. Rather, they are intra-church efforts, however embryonic, toward that unity that Christ demanded of His followers. Certainly your core message in favor of separation of church and state does not require, or even imply, separation of church from church. Your readers can only conclude that you have digressed from your core message to express a rather virulent anti-Catholicism.

You have a great many ideas of value to express on behalf of all Americans of faith without attacking fellow Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, who are trying to emphasize their common dedication to the Gospel in an increasingly pagan culture.

JOSEPH G. SCOVILLE

Grand Rapids, Michigan

I've received and enjoyed Liberty since the early 1980s and, as an attorney, I've found your excellent magazine to be a consistent source of well-reasoned articles on religious liberty.

Your criticism of the Protestant/Catholic statement The Gift of Salvation, however, is not well reasoned. You cite Jourdain's The Nature of Mathematics to show that the statement's attempt to reconcile justification by faith with its agreement to explore other traditional and related Roman Catholic doctrines as "doublespeak," in the same way as saying "2 plus 2 equals 5."

Ecumenical discussions within the community of Christian faith (the Catholic Church) are based on the assumption that matters of faith may be beyond the "Law of Logic" which was the subject of Philip Jourdain's book. While such discussions may not produce an accurate method for calculating standing room for angels on the heads of pins, perhaps Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, by expressing agreement over justification by faith, have at least acknowledged that religious truth in other matters of doctrine is not as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4.

As a Lutheran, I'm pleased that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have acknowledged the insight that Luther found in the writings of Paul. Surely there are other important things for them (and for Lutherans) to explore together.

EDWARD H. BLAIR, Jr., Esq.

Lenoir, North Carolina

Nailed to the Cross

Having read the article "Evangelizing From the Bench" (March/April), concerning Judge Moore's problem with posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, I would like to comment.

Over the years, I have heard and read statements made by various Protestant clergy that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross. In other words, they were done away with and made void, not binding anymore.

If this is true, then why is Judge Moore so persistent in nailing them back up again? What is the purpose if the law has been done away with?

Dr. E. L. LAWSON

Cortez, Colorado