.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Lennard James : Islam’s Sacred Religious Symbols…

Islam’s Sacred Religious Symbols…

What do symbols represent in religion? For many, it is sacred; for some, it is their identity, or represents their culture, or defines their God(s), or signifies their place in religious worships and rituals, or resembles their god(s) or a relic of historical values….. Whatever these religious symbols are, they have mystified mankind since he began to understand and make them by his bare hands with little or no tools. The finished product appeased him; he gave it significance to the creatures flying in the sky above him, or something which he marveled. He fashioned and considered these symbols to represent his god(s), which seemed to be greater than his thinking could decipher… The heavenly objects in the night sky gave him an understanding that some powerful beings are living in these objects, which dazzled him. It also played a major part of his surroundings and foods… We can still find and see such symbols painted on the cave walls by people who dwelled in them. We also have discovered objects of religious symbols fashioned as their god(s). These symbols represent as divinity in major religions of our present days! Most worshippers cling to these symbols at the time/in hour of death and consider it holy. Symbols became relics and relics became god(s)…!

Religious symbolism is the use of symbols, including archetypes, acts, artworks, events, or natural phenomena by religion. Religions view religious texts, rituals of worship, and works of art as symbols of compelling ideas or ideals. Symbols help create a resonant mythos expressing the moral values of the society or the teachings of the religion to foster solidarity among adherents, and also to bring adherents closer to their objects of worship.

The present-day man has still not given up on these symbolic artifacts, and adores them and wears them in times of religious rituals and offerings. It is also interesting how a symbol is associated with one view/party/religion even though the origin of that symbol may be totally different than the accepted meanings for which it is portrayed or assumed.

This article is on Religious Symbols or Symbolism in Islam and what do these Islamic Relics have to do within the confines Islamic history, practices, beliefs, spirituality, architectural artifacts, buildings, decorations and allah’s sacred names…

There are no official Islamic symbols, but several symbols or images have a special place in Islam. Below are some of the most revered and famous iconic symbols of Islam:

Kalima-e-Shahadah (Creed of Islam)
Allah (Name of God in Arabic)
Star and Crescent (Ottoman symbol on Islamic Flags)
Rub-el-Hizb (Islamic Architectural Designs)
Green  (Color Symbolism in Islam)


Star and Crescent Symbolism
The star and crescent is the best-known symbol used in representing Islam. It features prominently on the flags of many Islamic countries, notably Turkey and Pakistan. Surprisingly, this symbol is not of Islamic origin. Rather, it was a polytheistic icon adopted during the spread of Islam and its use today is sometimes controversial in the Muslim world. The crescent and star are often said to be Islamic symbols, but historians say that they were the insignia of the Ottoman Empire and not of Islam as a whole... It is also important to keep in mind that Islam has very few traditional symbols and the crescent moon and star are not the ones that are recognized as traditional symbols by Muslims. The symbol is due to its cultural diffusions and also with the spread of Islam to the Ottoman Turks, who ruled a large area of Europe, Asia and Africa. The Turks put the crescent moon and star symbol on their flag and it has since become associated with Islam…

Green as Islamic Color Symbolism
In early accounts of Muslim warfare, there are references to flags or battle standards of various colors: black, white, red, and greenish-black. Later Islamic dynasties adopted flags of different colors:
  1. The Umayyad fought under white banners
  2. The Abbasids chose black
  3. The Fatimids used green
  4. Various countries on the Persian Gulf have chosen red flags
These four colors (white, black, green and red) dominate the flags of the Arab World.
The color "green" has a special place in Islam, and is often used to represent it among other world religions. One can often find it in mosques and other important places, as well as on the flags of Muslim countries, notably Saudi Arabia. Some say green was Muhammad’s favorite color, and that he wore a green cloak and turban, while others believe it symbolizes vegetation and life. Some say that after Muhammad, only the caliphs were allowed to wear green turbans. In the Qur'an (Surah 18:31), it is said that the inhabitants of paradise will wear green garments of fine silk. While the reference to the Qur'an is verifiable, it is not clear if other explanations are reliable or mere folklore.

Regardless of its origins, the color green has been firmly cemented in Islamic culture for centuries; for example, it is absent in many medieval European coats of arms, as during the Crusades, green was the color used by Islamic soldiers. Additionally, in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, there is a room with relics of Muhammad. One of them, kept locked in a chest, is said to have been Muhammad's banner, under which he went to battles. Some say that this banner is green with golden embroidery; others say that it is black...

Other Islamic Symbolisms
Certain words in Arabic script or characters can be regarded as visually representing Islam, such as "Allah" at the top of this page, or the Kalima Shahada. A Shiite symbol is the sword, which is identified with Iimam Ali, who, they believe, fought with this sword and gave his life for Islam. The gardens of the Mughal Empire in India were symbols of paradise (Jannah).
The current flag of Saudi Arabia, used by the government of Saudi Arabia since March 15, 1973, is green featuring in white an Arabic inscription and a sword underneath. The Arabic inscription is written in the Thuluth script, which is the Islamic declaration of faith, the Kalima-e-Shahada:
la ilaha ill allah muhammadun rasul allah
(There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet)
The sword symbolizes the importance of the inscription by underlining it. Green flags bearing this or other Arabic scripts are frequently seen in Islam and should not be confused with the Saudi national flag. Other flags normally do not bear the sword. The flag is manufactured with differing obverse and reverse sides, to ensure that the Kalima-e-Shahada reads correctly from right to left and from either sides. The sword points from hoist to fly on both the sides. This flag is sinister hoisted, meaning that the obverse side (front) has the hoist side (flagpole side) to the right. The green color used in the flag is 330C.
Uses: Because the kalama-e-shahada is considered holy, the flag is not normally used on T-shirts or other wearable items. Saudi Arabia protested against its inclusion on a planned football to be issued by FIFA, bearing all the flags of the participants in the 2002 Football World Cup. Saudi officials said that kicking the creed with the foot was completely unacceptable in Islam. Similarly, an attempt by the US military to win favour with children of the Prosth region of Afghanistan, by distributing footballs adorned with participating countries flags including that of Saudi Arabia, ended in demonstrations. The Saudi flag is never lowered to half-mast as a sign of mourning. The normal flag cannot be hoisted vertically according to Saudi legislations. Special vertical flags are manufactured where both the inscriptions (the creed) and the emblem (the sword) are rotated, although this is rare, as most Arab countries lack the traditions of hoisting flags vertically.
History: A green flag with the shahada has been connected with the Wahhabi reformist movement since the 18th century. This movement was associated with the Al-Saud family's rise to power, and when Abdulaziz ibn Abdulrahman as-Saud became King of the Nejd in 1902, he added a sword to this flag. The design of the flag was not standardized prior to March 15 1973, and variants with two swords and/or a white vertical stripe at the hoist were frequently used. By 1938, the flag had basically assumed its present form.

Past Flags: The precursor states to Saudi Arabia were Nejd and Hijaz. The state flag of Nejd followed today's Saudi flag pattern very closely. The state of Hijaz followed the patterns seen in countries like Western Sahara and Sudan. From 1744, a crescent was present. From 1902 until 1921, a different Arabic inscription was used.

Islamic Figurative Art and Depictions of Muhammad

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." (Second Commandment, Exodus 20:4-5).

"Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created." (Hadith, Sahih Muslim vol.3, no. 5268)

The unique beauty of Islamic art derives in large part from its longstanding rejection of depictions of humans and animals in the Islamic religious art. Instead, portraits or stories from the Quran, the mosques and manuscripts are adorned with flourishes of Arabic calligraphy, delicate tile work, layers of gold with intricate floral decorations. But the attitude towards figurative art have varied somewhat throughout the course of Islamic history, and across different Islamic cultures. Animals and humans appear sporadically throughout the centuries, and there are many surviving examples of beautiful figurative art from the Islamic world, most of which come from the late medieval period in Iran. These even depict events in the life of Muhammad, the prophet’s scenic visions of Paradise and Hell, battles of Iranian kings, everyday life, and other human subjects. Today, as is it well-known, figurative art is widely rejected in Islam and depictions of Muhammad are especially considered very offensive. This article seeks to provide a factual background for this, and chronicling the history of figurative depictions in the Islamic art, pinning down exactly what is prohibited in the Quran and hadiths, and by exploring the reasoning given for the special sensitivity to the depictions of Muhammad.

Rules about Images in the Qur'an, Hadiths and Islamic Laws
Unlike the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps surprisingly, there is no commandment against making images of living beings in the Quran. But it does make it clear that nothing should be honored alongside God:

"God does not forgive the joining of partners [shirk] with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (Surah 4:48).

All Islamic injunctions against making religious images come from the hadiths (traditions recorded by various followers about what the Prophet said and did). Although not divine in revelation like the Quran, the hadiths is considered binding when multiple trustworthy sources agree on their authenticity. Following are some examples of hadiths on images:

"Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created." (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5268)

"This hadiths has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu'awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures" (Sahih Muslim vol.3, no.5271)

"Narrated [Muhammad's wife] 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, 'The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.'" (Bukhari vol.9, book 93 no.646)

"Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.’" (Bukhari vol.8, book 73, no.130)

"Umar said, ‘We do not enter your churches because of the statues and pictures.’ Ibn ‘Abbas used to pray in the church provided there were no statues in it." (Bukhari vol.1, chapter 54)

"‘Aisha played with dolls while her husband Muhammad was with her. (Sahih Muslim vol.4, book 29 ch.1005, no.5981)

"Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain." (Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3, book 21, no.3746)

History of Images and Figurative Art in Islam
In the earliest days of Islam, specifically "Islamic art" had not yet begun to develop, and art in general was not a prominent issue. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Earliest Islam as seen in the Quran or in the more verifiable accounts of the Prophet's life simply does not deal with the arts, either on the practical level of requiring or suggesting forms as expressions of the culture. or on the ideological level of defining a Muslim attitude toward images.... There is no prohibitions against any representations of living things, and not a single Quranic passage refers clearly to the mosque, which eventually becomes the most characteristic figure of the Muslim religious building." But as the Islamic communities grew and conquered a great deal of new territory, it came into contact with the religious arts and architectures of other cultures, and thus the Muslims began to develop its own figurative art in Islam..." By the mid-8th century there was a clear Muslim doctrine against the creation of images, as has been seen in the hadiths above.

It is interesting though that, Islam came into contact with the Byzantine cultures at the height of the iconoclastic controversy! It is possible that those intensely negative associations of religious art had indeed influenced or strengthened Islamic views on these matters.

Regardless, "it is likely that, more or less intuitively, the Muslims felt a certain reluctance toward representations from the very beginning. For all monuments of religious art are devoid of any representations; even a number of attempts at representational of symbolism in the official art of coinage were soon abandoned."

In the 8th and 9th centuries, Islamic art experimented with a wide variety of materials, techniques and design; many of which were influenced by China and other parts of the world. But the decorative arts remained generally consistent in excluding depictions of humans and animals. Some minor exceptions are birds drawn from the folkloric past of the Near East and "occasionally human figures drawn in strikingly abstract fashions".
The art of the Fatimids (a Shiite dynasty that ruled from 909–1171) continued to focus mainly on calligraphy and decorative vines, but also frequently depicted animals and humans. The celebrated lustre-painted Fatimid ceramics from Egypt are especially distinguished by "the representation of the human figure. Some of these ceramics have been decorated with simplified copies of illustrations of the princely themes, but others have depictions of scenes of Egyptian daily life". The Fatimid’s also developed an art of manuscript illustration.

The Seljuk Turks sought to restore Islamic orthodoxy. They made many contributions to Islamic art and architecture, including monumental minarets, mausoleums of holy men (to which pilgrimages were made), citadels and madressahs. Paintings and sculptures of animals and people were among the decorations employed for the monumental new architectures, but the Seljuks were especially interested in geometry and mathematical proportion in art. The Mamluks ruled Egypt, Palestine, and Syria from 1260 to 1517 and were very wealthy. The Mamluks are especially known for their splendid architecture, which included the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Mamluk art seems to have been virtually devoid of human and animal depiction. Meanwhile, in the Mongol period in Iran, Persian art became especially notable for its figurative art in wall paintings and illuminated manuscripts. These included many narrative scenes of the Prophet, Iranian kings and other humans. Examples include the 56 miniature paintings of the 14th-century Shah-e-Namahs ("Book of Kings"); illustrations of the Jami' at-tawarikh (“Universal History of Rashid ad-Din”); and the Khwaju Kermani manuscript from 1396. The Iranian style of painting was influenced by Seljuk art, but more so by Chinese painting. The most celebrated Islamic painter was Behzad (1455-1536), who led an academy of art in Iran.

The Ottoman Turks (15th-19th centuries) are best known for their tiles and pottery, but also developed their own form of miniature figurative paintings. The Ottoman miniatures do have a character of their own, either in the almost folk art effect of religious images or in the precise depictions of such daily events as military expeditions or great festivals. Among the finest examples of the latter is the manuscript Surname-i-Vehbi (Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul) painted by Levnî in the early 18th century.
Included this essay are some of the pictorial depictions of Muhammad and his vision. We can see many of these illustrated pictorial manuscripts in museums around the world. Some depict the Prophet in full, while others leave him faceless or with his head engulfed in the sacred flames, representing his contact with Allah. The images are given in roughly chronological order.

From this brief history, it is clear that figurative art (depictions of humans and animals) has made regular appearances in the Islamic world. However, figurative art has largely been a private and secular matter, with most mosques kept free of such imagery. As explained on the website of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art:
Contrary to a popular misconception, however, figural imagery is an important aspect of Islamic art. Such images occur primarily in secular and especially courtly arts and appear in a wide variety of media and in most periods and places in which Islam flourished. It is important to note, nevertheless, that representational imagery is almost invariably restricted to a private context. Figurative art is excluded from the decoration of religious monuments. This absence may be attributed to an Islamic antipathy toward anything that might be mistaken for idols or idolatry, which is explicitly forbidden by the Quran. Today, the depiction of prophets and especially Muhammad is widely rejected. The 1976 film The Message, directed by Moustapha Akkad and starring Anthony Quinn, tells the story of Muhammad, but follows Islamic law by not showing Muhammad or even portraying his voice (it is filmed from his perspective). But aside from the taboo about Muhammad, and despite the clear rules in hadiths, only the most conservative Muslims (such as the Taliban) believe it is wrong to create images in general, such as portraits or photographs. The introduction of television into Saudi Arabia was widely protested at first because of its images, but is now a common part of Saudi life.

Depictions of Muhammad in Islam
The outrage and violence occasioned by the infamous "Danish cartoon controversy" perhaps had more to do with disrespect for Islam than depictions of the Prophet. But many of today's Muslims consider any public depictions of Muhammad offensive and objectionable, no matter how respectful, and frequently request their removal. The reasons for this sensitivity to depictions of Muhammad are not immediately clear, since Muhammad is as human as anyone else, Islamic sources do not prohibit depictions of him any more than other images, and past Islamic art has depicted Muhammad. Islamic scholars have explained that the main reason for the ban on depicting Muhammad is the fear that the images of Muhammad might be worshipped. Political scientist As'ad AbuKhalil, visiting professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained:

"In the Holy Quran of Islam, the one sin unforgivable is that of polytheism. The prohibition is intended to protect the faithful from that sin. The fear was that intense reverence for the prophet might if unrestrained cross over into worship. In the 8th and the 9th centuries a general consensus banning such depictions arose among the clerics, but not all Muslims knew of it, paid attention, or obeyed".

According to Imam Talal Eid, director of the Islamic Institute of Boston:

"He [the Prophet] instructed his companions not to draw a picture of him, and this has been taken as a general prohibition. He also told them not to pray in places that have images. There also is a general prohibition against full statues. And -- though today, of course, we find photos in all passports -- many Muslims have felt some hesitance about permitting portraits of any kind".

Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, told NPR:

"The fear was, both in Judaism and Islam that if you represented a holy figure like a prophet who had discussions with the divine, there would be a danger of people worshipping the image".

Muslims certainly do revere the Prophet extremely highly. As Professor of Islamic Studies John Esposito put it, "to criticize the prophet Muhammad is as direct an attack as mocking or attacking the Koran, which is seen as the word of God or the sacred Scripture. Muhammad is seen as the living Koran. His life Muslims are to emulate".


Summary and Conclusions
The above evidence might be summarized in the following facts:
  1. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all consider idolatry a heinous sin.
  2. The Qur'an does not prohibit making images, only worshipping them.
  3. Hadiths clearly and consistently prohibits all images of any living being, with special mention of punishment for painters.
  4. One exception to this rule is dolls for children, probably because children are not considered in danger of worshipping them as idols.
  5. Neither the Qur'an nor Hadiths mention depictions of Muhammad.
  6. The Hadiths prohibiting images are directed at Muslims only (e.g. Muslims are instructed not to enter buildings where there are images, not to demand their removal).
  7. Muslim outrage against depictions of the Prophet does not usually extend to outrage against all images.
  8. The Hadiths prohibiting images do not call for Muslims to take action against those who make images, but instead say that God will punish them severely at the Day of Judgment.
  9. Muslims have applied the prohibitions against images in various ways throughout history, and there is still some variation today.
  10. Figurative art of Muhammad and other humans has been a significant part of late medieval Islamic art. But it was generally limited to secular contexts and elite classes, who could afford fine art.
  11. Shiites tends to be more open to religious images than Sunnis.
  12. The main reason given for not depicting Muhammad is to avoid the temptation to worship the image.
  13. Neither the Qur'an nor Hadiths say that viewing an image accidentally is a sin, but in the Hadiths the Prophet teaches Muslims to avoid them.
Islamic Religious Objects
This section describes and explains the religious objects, ritual items and other physical things related to Islam.
Minarets of Islam
A minaret (beacon) is an element of Islamic religious architecture. It is the tower traditionally used by a muezzin, the crier to call the faithful to prayer, five times a day. Minarets are always connected with a mosque, sometimes by an elevated passageway. At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the call to prayer was made from the highest roof in the vicinity of the mosque. The earliest minarets as such were former Greek watchtowers or the towers of Christian churches... Today, calls to prayer are usually done in the prayer hall through a loudspeaker, and minarets serve mainly decorative purposes. The oldest minaret in the world is in Kairouan, Tunisia. Built between 724 and 727, it has a massive square form. The tallest minaret in the world is that of the new Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca, Morocco, which stands 210 meters tall. Minarets were built to be “landmarks of Islam” — to be visible from afar and to stamp an area with Islamic character.
The number of minarets per mosque varies, from one to as many as six. They are constructed in a wide variety of forms ranging from thick, squat spiral ramps to soaring, delicate, pencil thin spires.
A minaret has one or more balconies, from which the muezzin announces the call to prayer, and a spiral staircase on the inside or outside. Often the minaret is square at the base, where it is attached to the mosque.
Above this square base it may rise in a series of circular, hexagonal, or octagonal stages, each marked by a projecting balcony.
At the top is a bulbous dome, an open pavilion, or a metal-covered cone. The upper parts of the minaret are usually richly decorated with carving. The steps may be internal or external.
Sources:
1. "minaret." Encyclopedia Britannica (2007). Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
2. "minaret." John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam (2003).
More Information

Minbar
A Minbar is the pulpit from which the Friday sermon (khutbah) is delivered. In its simplest form, the Minbar is a platform with three steps. It is located next to the Mihrab.
Muhammad originally delivered his sermons while leaning against a palm-trunk pillar in the mosque at Medina or ascending a stone platform. The Hadiths report that Muhammad later used a seat with two steps, fashioned from tamarisk wood by a Greek or Abyssinian carpenter, for receiving delegations in the mosque and also for preaching allahs’ Quran to his followers. Muhammad's successors, the caliphs, used the Prophet's Minbar as a symbol of their authority. During the first century of Islam, provincial governors came to use the Minbar primarily in their capacity as rulers, making speeches and hearing petitions from it. When the khutbah lost its informative and political character, and became purely religious sermons during the reign of the 'Abbasid caliphs dynasty, the Minbar also became a religious object in Islam. It became more permanent in nature, with the number of steps being increased, and it was commonly made of stone or brick. It was even covered with a cloth, the qatifah.
Sources:
  1. "minbar." Encyclopedia Britannica (2007). Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
  2. "minbar." John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam (2003).

Lennard James : Muslims ‘Expect No Criticism’

Muslims ‘Expect No Criticism’

“PROXIMITY”, as Shakespeare might have said although he didn't, breeds hostility... That explains why Muslims have been so hostile to other religions? The other side of the coin is, always, that hostility creates an urge for proximity!
Muslims are such a demanding race that, whenever there is criticism of their brutal history around the world over, they come out in their thousands, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and engaging in acts of mindless vandalism and terror. They even openly speak out about spilling blood of innocents, play havoc, and destruction…
Why the Muslims do all this?

….(‘cause we pamper ’em!!!)
Why do they have a free hand into every whim of theirs..? (Are we cowards? Are we afraid of them? Are we just gonna sit there with gloomy faces and don’t do anything about???)
…(‘cause we support ‘em!!!)

















Here are just some statistics on recent Muslim achievements and they "expect not criticism":
  1. Muslims murdered some 3,000 innocent peoples in New York on September 11, 2001, and..... Expect no criticism!
  2. Muslims murder 202 tourists in Bali, and........... Expect no criticism!
  3. Muslims murder 333 school children and their teachers in Beslan, and.........Expect no criticism!
  4. Muslims murder 292 innocents, mainly Kenyans and Tanzanians at two US Embassies, .......And expect no criticism!
  5. Muslims murder 241 US and 58 French peacekeepers in Beirut, and..... Expect no criticism!
  6. Muslims fire 4,000 Katyusha/Stinger rockets into Northern Israel killing over 50 innocent civilians, and............ Expect no criticism!
  7. Muslims murder 52 commuters in London and 191 in Madrid, and..... Expect no criticism!
  8. Muslims murder some 200 people in Mumbai, and......... Expect no criticism!
  9. Muslims behead Western hostages in Iraq, Buddhist monks in Thailand and Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, and............. Expect no Criticism!
  10. Muslim genocide in Sudan has claimed over 3 million lives since mid-1980; they massacred nearly 500,000 in Darfur since 2004, and........... Expect no criticism!
  11. Muslims regard Jews as 'sons of pigs and monkeys', and vow to nuke Israel out of existence, and.......... Expect no criticism!
  12. Muslims force women to wear hideous conical sacks, stone  to death for getting raped and for leaving their homes unescorted, engage in honor-killing of sisters and daughters for unapproved dating/marriages, and...... Expect no criticism!
  13. Muslims danced in the streets and handed out sweets to their kids to celebrate the 9/11 atrocity, and......... Expect no Criticism!
  14. Since 9/11, Muslims have killed over 26,000 and wounded over 150,000 in terrorist attacks worldwide, and............ Still Expect no Criticism!
  15. Since 9/11 Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chad, Chechnya, Dagestan, Denmark, East Timor, Egypt, England, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ingushetia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Jordan-Iraq, Kabardino-Balkans, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gaza-Palestinian Authority, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka , Sudan , Syria , Tajikistan, Thailand , Tunisia , Turkey , United Arab Emirates, United Arab Republic , United States , Uzbekistan and Yemen, and............ STILL Expect No Criticism!
  16. Muslims have carried out over 13,000 fatal terrorist atrocities and damages to public and private buildings/vehicles since 9/11, and countless millions since the Islamic conquest began from 623 AD; and still they Expect No Criticism!
  17. But if the Pope dares to tell the truth about Islam's history, or a Danish Newspaper publish cartoons of Mohammed, they let the outpourings of Islamic rage, and.......... Expect no criticism!
  18. And, by some twisted reach of logics, these arrogant vandals demand apology from the Pope, and.......... Expect no criticism!

Is this fair?

Muslims expect us to just shut up and watch, while they do what their Holy Book, the Quran, teaches and preaches… “You do as you please”, and…… still Expect No Criticism!
Here is a countdown of "top- ten facts" about Islam in our world:
10. In Afghanistan ‘You’ grow and refine heroin for a living, and, yet, you have a moral objection to beer.
09. You own a $3,000 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you cannot afford to wear shoes.
08. You have more wives than teeth, and, yet, you want to rape more infidels.
07. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide jackets, and, yet, you want us to believe it is haram to kill.
06. You cannot think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against, yet the Quran preaches harmony.
05. You consider television dangerous, and, yet, you routinely carry ammunition in your robe.
04. You've never been asked, "Does this burka/hijab make my butt look fat?", and, yet, you make it mandatory for your women folk to wear when leaving home.
03. You are amazed to discover that cell-phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs, and, yet, the kuffar technology is ably used for that horrendous purpose.
02. You've never uttered the phrase, "I love what you've done with your cave", but yet you destroy infidel homes and their places of worships.
And, the NUMBER ONE SIGN you might be a member of the Taliban...
01. You wipe your rear with mud-stones, and, yet, you consider all infidels are unclean.

Ibn Warraq : On The World Trade Center Atrocity

Statement By Ibn Warraq On The World Trade Center Atrocity

Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as “Muslims” or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims”[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur’an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

“Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence,” apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

“Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion,” continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari’a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur’an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that “dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re-establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth...”[2]

It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I should like to see them do three things:

1. All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism, should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people,

2. All moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim their Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.

3. All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur’an, recognize its role in the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century values which the West has largely outgrown.

While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur’an critically.

Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari’a, Islamic Law.

It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to their hero, Usama bin Laden.

Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair). Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Qur’an contains words and passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91; LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical errors and inconsistencies.

Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years old.

If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values, such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law, representative government, individualism (in the sense that every individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..

Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or “orientalism.” They bear some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that “The Islamic Threat ” is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.

One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one’s head in the Sands of Araby.



[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry “Jihad”

[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.

Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not a Muslim and the editor of The Origins of the Koran, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, and What the Koran Really Says
======

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Michael Moore ; Religious Attitudes toward the Disabled

Religious Attitudes toward the Disabled (2015)

Michael Moore

One can readily find evidence of the low regard that various religions have for the disabled. Like religious misogyny (or "hatred of women": see Kramer & Moore, 2002), prejudicial practices against the disabled often have doctrinal justification. In this essay I (a) cite scriptural sources for these attitudes, (b) describe some of the discriminatory behaviors associated with them, and (c) sample some of the apologetics used to deal with obvious conflicts generated by purportedly kind and merciful belief systems that not only tolerate, but actually encourage, exclusionary actions. I realize, of course, that the sources that I have searched often contain different messages, some of which contradict the messages I highlight. My concern is not so much the inconsistency between the various scriptures, but the ability of believers to find a scriptural rationalization for practically any behavior.


Jewish attitudes

 toward the disabled rely on strict biblical injunctions against the participation of the physically handicapped in bringing sacrifice: "none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles" (Leviticus 21: 17-20).[1] Or consider Exodus 4:11: "Who gives man speech? Who makes him dumb or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" The latter has served as the scriptural basis of the main monotheistic religions' belief in a divine source for all afflictions.[2] According to Tzvi Marx (2002), Halachic literature (the body of Jewish religious laws) "reveals instances of apparent indifference, or even callousness, with respect to the disabled: laws and liturgical passages that appear to evince a dismissive, even derisive attitude toward individuals with disabilities" (p. 1). Marx saw in this attitude "an internal ambivalence," a "dissonance within the halakhic culture itself," in view of the disabilities of major figures in Jewish thought: "Isaac, who is blind, Jacob, who limps; the initially childless matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, and the speech-disabled Moses—are no less esteemed because of disability" (p. 2).
In his highly influential Guide for the Perplexed, the 12th-century Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides offered an apologia for the harsh strictures of the Pentateuch:
A priest who had a blemish was not allowed to officiate; and not only those who had a blemish were excluded from the service, but also ... those that had an abnormal appearance; for the multitude does not estimate man by his true form but by the perfection of his bodily limbs and the beauty of his garments, and the temple was to be held in great reverence by all. (1919/1194, p. 357) 

The Hindu doctrine of Samsara 

connects individual differences to actions performed in a past life. Mental and physical suffering "is thought to be part of the unfolding of karma and is the consequence of past inappropriate action (mental, verbal or physical) that occurred in either one's current life or in a past life" (Whitman, 2007). Hindu mythology often portrays people with disabilities negatively, such as the blind king Dritarashtra and the lame Shakuni, both of whom appear as cruel and evil. And Lord Vishnu declared that disabled people have no place in Heaven and refused to wed Lakshmi's disfigured sister, arranging her to marry a tree (World Bank, 2007).
All of this received wisdom inevitably influences the behavior of believers toward the disabled. Before 1928, handicapped individuals in India could not inherit property. Yet the abolishment of legal discrimination (Nagpal, 1983) has not changed social norms. In a 2007 World Bank survey in India, around half of the respondents believed that "disability was always or almost always a curse of God." The survey also showed that people with disabilities attended around half of social and religious functions, and often found themselves discouraged from attending marriages. The behavior of clergy provides another indication of intolerance of disabled individuals: According to Punbit (2013), "extremist Hindu temples have started a drive to deny entry to disabled people."
In his defense of belief in the karmic origin of disabilities, professor of comparative religion Arvind Sharma relied upon what Lawrence Kohlberg characterized as the lowest level of moral reasoning (one typical of young children): that one's behavior should be dictated by the need to avoid punishment (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1984). According to Sharma, a belief in karma "commends warm-hearted concern to minimize the [disabled] person's problems, even though caused by his or her own actions in the past. Otherwise, according to that same law of karma, when we find ourselves similarly disadvantaged, we will ourselves be so treated, and will have deserved such treatment by our own callousness" (Sharma, 1999).

An identical account appears in Buddhism:

The blind of this world bear a heavy burden for past failure to tell the way clearly to travelers. Some people's mouths are very misshapen. They blew out lamps on the Buddhas' altars. To be deaf and mute is a dreary existence. Reward appropriate for scolding one's parents. How do people get to be hunchbacks? They berated and laughed at those bowing to Buddhas" (Buddhist Text Translation Society, n.d.).
Having been exposed to such texts, many Buddhists have a negative attitude toward the disabled. According to one survey of Japanese Buddhists, "68% of people with disability say they have experienced discrimination," and "the vast majority of people without disability feel that individuals who have a disability are treated like second-class citizens" (Stevens, 2013, p. 32). Sallie B. King reached a similar conclusion:
Popular understanding based on the idea of karma has provided a rationalization for people to turn their backs on the disabled.... This interpretation of karma has been so common that modern reformers in countries like Japan bitterly blame Buddhism for much of the super-added suffering of disabled people beyond the physical suffering directly caused by their disabilities—their rejection by society, their treatment as pariahs, and the lack of interest in helping them. (2009, p. 163)
Contemporary Buddhists feel embarrassed by the cruelty of the karmic doctrine and the subsequent ill-treatment of the disabled. Richard Louis Bruno, a disabled Buddhist psychotherapist, solved this dilemma by doing two quite different things. First, he disassociated himself from the basic concept of "karmic punishment" by writing that some Buddhists (unlike himself) "believe in reincarnation and say that what happens to you in this life results from the circling back of your own actions from previous lives" (Bruno, n.d.). Second, he collected quotes from a few disabled persons, some of whom share his opinion:
"I believe my accident (and its consequences) is a result of something I'd done (or didn't do), or because of something I didn't handle properly, in a past life. I now get another chance to 'do it right.'" (Bruno, n.d.)
"It is really unproductive to think about past lives.... We have more than enough to handle dealing with this one." (Bruno, n.d.)
"When we accept that everything animate and inanimate is 'already broken,' a physical disability—even a terminal illness—loses its abnormality. Actually, anything that is not broken, not 'disabled,' is really abnormal." (Bruno, n.d.)
Khun Kampol Thongbunnum expressed an attitude similar to these in a short poem:
Most people
Live in suffering
Without knowing
Only when happiness
Gradually fades away
That suffering
Shows its face
Then and there
Not perceiving suffering
One consequently fails
To find the way out
And to get rid of suffering
Once and for all.
(Thongbunnum, 2010) 
--------------
I empathize with the pain and desperation of the disabled, and I applaud their use of a wide variety of psychological defense mechanisms to make their lives easier. The disturbing aspect of these statements concerns not the disabled, but the able-bodied, who learn to blame the victims for their plight and to feel not only physically but morally superior to them.
--------------

Christian attitudes 

toward the disabled not only receive scriptural justification from the verses quoted from the Hebrew Bible above, but from Matthew 9:2, 7 (also in Mark and Luke), where Jesus heals a paralyzed man by forgiving his sins: "Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, 'Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.'... Then the man got up and went home." Another fable casts doubt over a simple "sin leads to disability" formula, for in John 9:1-3 we read: "As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.'" Two important points about Jewish and Christian attitudes toward disability are exemplified here. First, popular belief among first-century Jews parallels that found in the karmic views of the far-Eastern religions described above. Second, Christianity accepts that God aggrandizes himself at the expense of mortals.
Several later sources that are revered by Christians reinforce the view that God punishes humans with disabilities. Canon 22 of the Lateran Council (an ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic church) of 1215 avowed:
Since bodily infirmity is sometimes caused by sin, the Lord saying to the sick man whom he had healed: 'Go and sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee' (John 5:14), we declare in the present decree and strictly command that when physicians of the body are called to the bedside of the sick, before all else they admonish them to call for the physician of souls, so that after spiritual health has been restored to them, the application of bodily medicine may be of greater benefit, for the cause being removed the effect will pass away. (Mar, 1996)
In The Order for the Visitation of the Sick (Mant, 1816), we find the following passages:
Are you persuaded that your sickness is sent unto you by Almighty God?
An altered wording conveys the same message in the currently used Book of Common Prayer:
Whatsoever your sickness is, know you certainly, that it is God's visitation.[3]
In 1958 the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church declared: "It is cruel and false to brand every sufferer as a sinner: much suffering and sickness is due to the sin either of other persons or of society in general" (McDonald, 2013).
A different twist involves the introduction of a new character, the Devil. This move discredits the above quoted declaration in Exodus 4:11 by subscribing to a dualistic cosmology. For instance, around 419 St. Augustine wrote that "many are born deformed, many diseased, many horrible and monstrous.... Yes, even baptized infants are at times subjected to attacks by demons, in addition to other evils of this life" (419/1957, p. 339). Martin Luther concurred:
I maintain that Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind, for he is the prince of death. St Peter speaks of Christ as healing all that are oppressed of the devil. He not only cured those who were possessed, but he restored sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, strength to the paralytic; therefore I think all grave infirmities are blows and strokes of the devil (Luther, 1566/1997, p. 275, #593).[4]
Walter Bachmann (1985) summed up the results of this long list of deprecations: "It is doubtful if the handicapped have ever, in any other cultural domain in human history, been more wronged and despised or treated with greater intolerance and inhumanity, than in Christendom" (p. 442).[5]
Apologists did not delay. An early apologetic attempt by the apostle Paul not only accepted, but invited and adulated, suffering: "Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope" (Romans 5:3-4). A website run by the Christian Apologetics Alliance uses simple logic to prove its point, ignoring the logical contradiction between the following syllogism and much of what appears above: "God values people. People with disabilities are people. Therefore, God values people with disabilities" (Schmoll, 2014).
Some formulae bear obvious similarity to the apologetics offered by other religions above: "The Christian understanding of human nature is that we are damaged, wounded and disabled by sin. That's just the way things are" (McGrath, 2012, p. 170). (For the dangerous consequences of seeing ourselves as defenseless or worthless, see Moore & Kramer, 2000.) On a Christian Biblical Counsel website, June Hunt answered the question, "Are there Blessings from Afflictions?" as follows: "When blasted by the winds of adversity, the heart that is sheltered in the hands of God still produces a life that is full of meaning and purpose" (Hunt, n.d.) She also offered more detailed justifications, such as "Suffering softens your heart toward obeying God's Word," or "Suffering uncovers your heart's weakness so that Christ is your strength" (n.d.).
David J. C. Judson defended the above cited stricture in Leviticus 21:17-20 (and confirmed in the Code of Canon Law—see Vatican, 1983): "I feel this is no reflection on the handicapped person, but rather a wonderful reminder of the holiness and whole-ness of God" (Judson, 1975, p. 778).

At first glance Islam's approach 

to the disabled appears benign. For example, on the Why Islam? website Saulat Pervez describes two cases where the prophet Muhammad behaved decently toward disabled persons, adding that "These examples are important because they show that even though the Prophet, pbuh, was sensitive to their particular circumstances, he did not consider these to be things which should stand in their way of leading normal lives" (Pervez, 2014). But a closer look reveals a different attitude, one that reinforces an association between physical disabilities and disbelief in the dogma. Such a mindset is more than sufficient to provide scriptural justification for those who choose to disparage the disabled:
"Those who reject our Signs are deaf and dumb, - in the midst of darkness profound: whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander: whom He willeth, He placeth on the way that is straight" (Koran 6:39).
"But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment" (Koran 20:124).
"Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for He has made them deaf and blinded their sight" (Koran 47:23).
While these verses may well have used deafness and blindness symbolically, they nonetheless ridicule those who suffer these adversities. The results speak for themselves: "Outside the Circle," a report by child rights organization Plan International and the University of Toronto, describes
the horrific scale of discrimination and abuse faced by children with disabilities in West Africa [which is 70% Islamic]. This includes shocking reports of infanticide and trading in body parts of children with disabilities.... [C]hildren with disabilities are subject to profound levels of poverty, exclusion and discrimination in a region marked by deprivation and harmful practices rooted in traditional beliefs (Kumar, 2013).
Amar Alam notes the "unprecedented levels of prejudice and discrimination" mentally disabled individuals suffer at the hand of Muslims, attributing this attitude to the "prevalent belief among Muslims ... that intellectual disabilities are caused by mental illness, possession by Jinns, supernatural phenomena and punishment for previous sins" (Alam, 2014). Similarly, Ayse Ciftci, Nev Jones, and Patrick W. Corrigan (2012) surveyed the literature on the stigma of mental health in Muslim communities and found that in addition to discrimination and ostracism, mentally disabled Muslims also suffer from lack of professional treatment due to their families' unwillingness to report their condition.
Muslim apologists differ little from the apologists of other religions when it comes to defending contemptuous attitudes toward the disabled. Shaykh Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak, a Saudi scholar who recently issued a fatwa sanctioning the killing of advocates of gender mixing at work and in education, wrote an essay on why Allah created mental disabled people, a question that he answers as follows: "His perfect wisdom decrees that He creates opposites.... He created His slaves with differences in their bodies and minds, and in their strengths. He has made some rich and some poor, some healthy and some sickly, some wise and some foolish. By His wisdom, He tests them, and He tests some by means of others, to show who will be grateful and who will be ungrateful" (al-Barraak, n.d.).
Scott Thompson takes a different line: "If a person suffers from a physical handicap or disability, he has some special talent to compensate for it, whether he is aware of that talent or not. For this reason, disabilities are regarded as tests from God, designed to allow the disabled person to show his character and his own unique gifts" (Thompson, n.d.).[6] Wasif Islam offers a similar justification: "[B]eing disabled is a test from Allah in this life, and therefore can be a blessing in disguise. Every disabled person should be patient and live up to this challenge. Allah promised those who observe patience a great reward in the Hereafter" (Islam, 2009).
And if none of these justifications work, one can always fall back on this old chestnut from a fatwa issued by al-Barraak:
People are incapable of comprehending Allaah's wisdom. He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. Glorified and exalted be He. Whatever you understand of His wisdom, believe in it, and whatever you cannot understand, say, 'Allaah knows best and is most wise, and we know nothing except that which You have taught us, and He is the All-Knowing, Most Wise.' (al-Barraak, n.d.) 
----------
I have shown that the followers of the above-mentioned religions can find in their sacred texts ample grounds for looking down upon the disabled, for excluding them both socially and physically, and for endorsing the pernicious idea of blaming the victim. In an edited volume dealing with the three monotheistic religions' approach to disability, Darla Schumm and Michael J. Stoltzfus reached a similar conclusion:
While religious attitudes and responses to disability are quite diverse, it is not uncommon for Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspectives to mimic the medical model by connecting disabling bodily conditions with individual spiritual deficiency. There is a persistent tendency to associate disability with individual sin. Well-meaning people from multiple religious traditions often struggle to offer religious explanations and religious solutions to the "problem" (Schumm & Stoltzfus, 2011, p. xiv). 

Religions tend to have a highly stratified social structure, where the bottom level consists of rank-and-file believers. But this level also has their own punching bag: What better target than the weak, the different, the minority, and the disabled. A significant source in shaping one's self-esteem is comparing oneself to others; the pervasive phenomenon of social comparison provides one with a perception of relative standing. Evaluating oneself by finding faults in others offers a fool-proof method for gaining some sense of self-esteem: Just find someone who is worth less than you, and if you can't find one, create one! This is the mechanism behind belittling: Gaining illusory ascendance by disparaging others, saying or implying that they are unimportant, ineffective, or unsuccessful (Kramer-Moore & Moore, 2012, p. 127). al-Barraak makes this crystal clear: "When the sound believer sees disabled people, he recognizes the blessing that Allaah has bestowed upon him, so he gives thanks for His blessing, and He asks Him for good health" (al-Barraak, n.d.)

Notes

[1] See also Deuteronomy 23:1: "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord." Contemporary Orthodox Judaism has continued this practice.
[2] See also Deuteronomy 28:15; compare with the belief, considered heretical in Jewish thought, in "two supreme powers," as illustrated by anecdotes about the first-century Jewish sage Elisha ben Abuyah in the Hagigah tractate of the Babylonian Talmud.
[3] Mormon doctrine agrees and goes a step further; see Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation 1:61: "There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Smith & McConkie, 1954).
[4] See also Table Talk #360: "in all grave illnesses the devil is present as the author and cause."
[5] See also Ruthven (2009): "Oral Roberts' Jesus did not approve of fat people and overweight students were required to 'slim for Him.' Disabled people were kept off the campus until the American Civil Liberties Union brought a successful anti-discrimination suit."
------------
Though not a Christian religion, I must mention Scientology and Ron Hubbard's view on the physically or mentally disabled: "There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow" (Jacobsen, 2010).
-------------
[6] This opinion originates in Koran 67:2: "He who created death and life to test you as to which of you is best in deed."

References

Alam, Amar. "Muslim Ignorance about Intellectual Disabilities" (2014). 5Pillars Website. <http://www.5pillarz.com/2014/04/03/muslim-ignorance-to-intellectual-disabilities/>.
al-Barraak, Abd al-Rahmaan. "Why Allaah Creates Mentally Disabled People" (n.d.). <http://www.islam-qa.com/en/7951>
St. Augustine. "Against Julian." In The Fathers of the Church—A New Translation, Volume 35, trans. M. A. Schumacher. New York, NY: Catholic University of America, 1957: 4-396. (Original work written c. 419).
Bachmann, Walter. Das unselige Erbe des Christentums, die Wechselbälge: Zur Geschichte der Heilpädagogik. Giessen, Germany: Institut für Heil- und Sonderpädagogik d. Justus-Liebig-Universität, 1985.
Bruno, Richard Louis. "'Handicapped' Buddhism" (n.d.). <http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/ada-buddhism.html>
Buddhist Text Translation Society. "The Buddha Speaks the Sutra on Cause and Effect in the Three Periods of Time" (n.d.). <http://www.cttbusa.org/cause_effect/cause_and_effect.htm#rt>
Ciftci, Ayse, Jones, Nev, and Patrick W. Corrigan. "Mental Health Stigma in the Muslim Community." Stigma, Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2013): 17-32.
Halsall, Paul. "Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215" (1996). Fordham University Internet History Sourcebooks Project. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp> (Original work written 1215).
Hunt, June. "Chronic Illness and Disabilities" (n.d.).<http://truth4freedom.wordpress.com/biblical-counseling-and-discipleship-guide/christian-biblical-counsel-for-chronic-illness-and-disabilities/>
Islam, Wasif. "Rights of Disabled in Islam" (2009). <http://sifoundation.webs.com/islamicrights.htm>
Jacobsen, Jeff. "Help! INFODUMP: Hubbard Quotes on Disability/Disabled Needed" [Online forum comment] (2010, September 11). <https://whyweprotest.net/threads/help-infodump-hubbard-quotes-on-disability-disabled-needed.63382/>
Judson, David J. C. "Evangelism among the Blind, Deaf, and Handicapped." In Let the Earth Hear his Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Congress on World Evangelization, 1975: 776-787.
King, Sallie B. Socially Engaged Buddhism. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press, 2009.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, Charles G. Levine, and Alexandra Hewer. "The Current Formulation of the Theory." In Essays on Moral Development: Vol. II Psychology of Moral Development, ed. Lawrence Kohlberg. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984: 219-319.
Kramer, Daniela and Michael Moore. "'Women are the Root of all Evil': The Misogyny of Religions" (2002). The Secular Web. <http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/quotwomen-are-the-root-of-all-evilquot-the-misogyny-of-religions-203.html>
Kramer-Moore, Daniela and Michael Moore. Destructive Myths in Family Therapy: How to Overcome Barriers to Communication by Seeing and Saying—A Humanistic Perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
Kumar, Davinder. "Africa's Disabled Cursed by Apathy and Abuse" (2013). <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/2013922121017135639.html>
Luther, Martin. Table Talk by Martin Luther. Albany, OR: The Ages Digital Library Collections, 1997. (Original work published in German 1566).
McDonald, James. "Traditional Christian Treatment of the Sick" (2013). <http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gam_sick.htm>
McGrath, Alister E. Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012.
Nagpal, Ramesh C. Modern Hindu Law. Allahabad, India: Manav Law House, 1983.
Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed, 2nd ed., trans M. Friedlander. London, UK: Routledge, 1919. (Original work written 1194).
Mant, Richard. The Order for the Visitation of the Sick, 3rd ed. London, UK: F. C. & J. Rivington, 1816.
Marx, Tzvi C. Disability in Jewish Law. London, UK: Routledge, 2002.
Moore, Michael and Daniela Kramer. "We are Too Weak to Walk Unaided: A Family Therapist View of the Pathogenic Aspects of Prayer" (2000). Secular Web. <http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_moore/weak.html>
Pervez, Saulat. The Treatment of Handicapped People in Islam (2014). Why Islam?. <http://www.whyislam.org/social-values-in-islam/social-ties/disability-in-islam/>
Punbit. "Hindu Temples Deny Disabled People Entry" (2013). <www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCGN1KwniQ0>
Ruthven, Malise. "Oral Roberts: Evangelist who Pioneered the Charismatic Style that Came to Dominate American Christianity." The Independent, December 17, 2009.
Schmoll, Zak. "Why Does God Allow Disabilities?" (2014). Christian Apologetics Alliance. <http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2014/03/01/why-does-god-allow-disabilities/>
Schumm, Darla Schumm and Michael J. Stoltzfus. "Introduction." In Disability in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Sacred Texts, Historical Traditions, and Social Analysis, ed. D. Schumm & M. J. Stoltzfus. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011: xii-xxiii.
Sharma, Arvind. "Karma was Fouled!" Hinduism Today, September 1999. <http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4345>
Smith, Joseph Fielding and Bruce R. McConkie. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1954.
Stevens, Carolyn S. Disability in Japan. London, UK: Routledge, 2013.
Thompson, Scott. "Rights of the Disabled According to the Quran & Hadiths" (n.d.). <http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8620741_rights-disabled-according-quran-hadiths.html>
Thongbunnum, Khun Kampol. "Bright and Shining Mind in a Disabled Body" (2010). <http://dharma-documentaries.net/bright-and-shining-mind-in-a-disabled-body>
Vatican. The 1983 Code of Canon Law. Vatican City: Vatican, 1983. <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Q.HTM>
Walshe, Maurice. (Trans.) Thus Have I Heard: A New Translation of the Digha Nikaya, The Long Discourses of the Buddha. London, UK: Wisdom Publications, 1987.
Whitman, Sarah M. "Pain and Suffering as Viewed by the Hindu Religion." Journal of Pain, Vol. 8, No. 8 (April 26, 2007): 607-613.
World Bank. "People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes" (2007). <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/2955831171456325808/Chapter02.pdf>
=======================
https://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_moore/disabled.html