The ABUSE of understanding - Fitna

As I have commented before on this blog, the 'beauty' of ancient manuscripts is the lack of real understanding of what the language actually meant in the culture of the time. This allows for all sorts of 'misinterpretations and kaleidoscopic conclusions' - giving rise to sectarianism, schism,
dysfunction.


There is no greater threat to the established 'religions' than the proclamations of one of influence who claims to have discovered THE truth about God (as opposed to A truth about God), and then proceeds to 'justify this declaration' with all sorts of ancient texts interpreted to suit the argument.

FITNA is a case in point! 'Anonymous' responded to my blog thursday post on Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:16 AM with :"Fitna doesnt mean "oppression", it means "opposition". The same way a dictator would outlaw and squash any political opposition This is totalitarian theocracy imposed by the sword and it is why Geert Wilders title his movie "Fitna". Muslims try to twist the meaning of fitna to make them sound like victims when actually it is quite the opposite. " (I will post comments that are signed with something more precise than anon and reserve the right to edit any comments I deem especially offensive)

So I thought I better google and check out other meanings of the word FITNA to those I had already assembled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_%28word%29 and this article starts "Arabic word, generally regarded as very difficult to translate", difficult to translate is a euphanism for 'it can mean almost anything".



This is Islamist centrist intellectual Mohamed al-Amara who published a thought provoking, faith enlightening - and storm
surrounded book "Fitna al-Takfir" last year.
You can see some of the turmoil in The Islamic religion's propensity to accept innumerable interpretations of a sura/text/takfir here: http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2007/02/amaras_fitna_al.html
and one of the comments on that blog says as follows:

"He is focused on "fitna" - or in-fighting amongst Muslims. He is saying, basically, that it is brother with brother, and brother with cousin against the stranger, i.e. Muslims should not fight amongst themselves and hence weaken themselves vis a vis the West"

In short, there is not ONE Islamic religion,there are many - though there is but 'One God'. As I wrote on thursday:
"In the normal way of old-fashioned politics,if you seek to unite a people - or distract a population from what you are doing - the finest way is to' create a common enemy'. Where 'traditions and sectarian religious concepts are concerned' it is fairly easy to find targets".

Thus we see that the dysfunction of Islam, the 'civil war within Islam', gives rise to attacks upon 'kafir'(non-believers) not because of their non-belief, but because of Islam's inability to define what IT really believes in a universally agreed format.

But,hey, don't just point the finger at Islam here - almost every major religion has divided into warring sects. Even worse, most have claimed 'divine authority' for imposing torture and death upon their victims - like they have played the role of God, taking life (note, they are not so good at the other extreme of giving/creating life).Remember Beslan. Remember Islam Khardykov?

So who to believe? which to accept?
I have a very simple test - if it isn't loving, compassionate, merciful - it isn't from God!

Listen to your heart