After reading several other blogs about the Muslim religion, I have decided to write my own. Many times we are fed a line that most of these people are very peaceful and there are a few “extremists” that give the religion a bad name. While I would agree that many Muslims (particularly ones that do not live in the Middle East) are peaceful, I would disagree that the religion does not allow for violence. And here are just a few reasons why:
THE KORAN
While there are many other verses that could be put in here, I have chosen just two to share on this blog to attempt to keep it as easy to read as possible.
1. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
2. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Here is another story of a Muslim leader:
BBC NEWS
Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri preached that killing non-Muslims was justified even for no reason, the jury at the Old Bailey has heard.
"Killing a Kafir [infidel] for any reason you can say it is OK even if there is no reason for it," he was recorded as saying.
Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, according to the head of an aid group who recently returned from the African nation.
The forced conversions are just one aspect of the Khartoum government's self-declared jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south, Dennis Bennett, executive director of Seattle-based Servant's Heart told WorldNetDaily.
Villagers in several areas of the northeast Upper Nile region say that when women are captured by government forces they are asked: "Are you Christian or Muslim?"
Women who answer "Muslim" are set free, but typically soldiers gang-rape those who answer "Christian" then cut off their breasts and leave them to die as an example for others.
Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 4.5 million have become refugees.
ATTITUDE TOWARD CHRISTIANS
From the beginning, Islam drew a distinction between Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims. The former were "people of the book." They had to pay special taxes and wear identifying clothing, yet their status reflected a certain respect for what Muslims saw as the earlier but incomplete and corrupted revelation recorded in the Bible.
This next story I’ll give the a short version:
After the Pope made a remark that Islam can be a violent religion. Many in the Islamic community asked that something be done.
AS SHE LAY dying in a Mogadishu hospital, Sister Leonella forgave her killers. She had lived in Africa for almost four decades and could speak fluent Somali, but her last words were murmured in Italian, her mother tongue. ``Perdono, perdono," she whispered. I forgive, I forgive.
She was 65 and had devoted her life to the care of sick mothers and children. She was on her way to meet three other nuns for lunch on Sunday when two gunmen shot her several times in the back. "Her slaying was not a random attack," the Associated Press reported. It "raised concerns" that she was the latest victim of "growing Islamic radicalism in the country."
Raised concerns? Sister Leonella was gunned down less than two days after a prominent Somali cleric had called on Muslims to kill Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks about Islam in a scholarly lecture last week.
In his lecture, Benedict quoted the late Byzantine emperor Manuel II, who had condemned Islam's militancy with these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
In the ensuing uproar, British Muslims demonstrated outside Westminster Cathedral with signs reading "Pope go to Hell" and "Islam will conquer Rome," while the head of the Society of Muslim Lawyers declared that the pope must be "subject to capital punishment." In Iraq, the radical Mujahideen's Army vowed to "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome" and the Mujahideen Shura Council swore to ``continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks." Arsonists in the West Bank set churches on fire, and a group calling itself ``The Sword of Islam" issued a warning: ``If the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza's churches."
With all this going on many still want to say that the Pope’s actions were wrong and that he prompted the Muslims to react. It is a staggering double standard, and too many in the West seem willing to go along with it. Witness the editorials in US newspapers this week scolding the pope for his speech. Recall the State Department's condemnation of the Danish cartoons last winter.
All of this has led me to feel the need to vent a little about this “peaceful” religion and the tolerance we need to show it. Sorry for the long blog, thanks if you made it this far in reading it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I know what you're trying to say, but I think we have to be a little careful that we don't take sections of scriptures and treat them outside of their context.
What I'm saying is this: a person could make the same argument from the OT that the Judeo-Christian faith is an inherently violent one if they only limited themselves to those passages that endorse genocide in the conquest period of OT history.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the Qur'an or anything, but I think we need to apply the same principles of interpretation and context to any text we read, whether we believe it to be holy or not.
Would agree. But, the Koran is writen to be read by Muslims of today. Where as the OT was written to the people that lived during that time.
Having read many other verses I simply chose 2 in order to save on time. I could have listed many, or differnt chapters to make the point, but did not want to write a blog that took 2 days to read.
Also, I was careful not to take these two out of context.
Curious if you are implying the faith is inherently peaceful?
Again, I know what you're saying, but I think the OT is valid for us today, too. We understand that it isn't binding for us as we have are heirs of the new covenant, but that doesn't mean we can disregard it. For too long, we've treated the OT like a buffet line, picking and choosing what verses we like to prop up our theologies. That's not the discussion you're wanting to have here, though.
As for whether Islam is a peaceful religion...I'm torn. I don't want to classify an entire group of people that way. I don't know any Muslims personally, but I know many devout Muslims are as appalled as we are by the actions of a few radicals. But I've read the same passages as you and I am inclined to agree with you to a certain degree. Just about the only text I've read on the subject is called Unveiling Islam by the Caner brothers. They explain that Islamic peace is defined as Islamic rule & dominion. I think there's a fundamental difference in this kind of peace and the peace that Christ teaches. A Christian's peace comes not through the exertion of power but, actually, through the relinquishing of power and self-dominion in relationship with Christ. I think we have to define what we mean by peaceful religion.
I'll chew on this some more and post more commentary later. But I will say that I bristle at broad categorizations like branding an entire group of people as "non-peaceable". You know what I'm saying?
Islam is a peaceful religion and if you don't believe it they will show you buy killing nuns and rioting in the streets. Their religion endorses violence, they seem to be convicted of such by the way they react. Contrast with the reaction of the Nickel Mines Amish, you have killed my daughter so now I am going to come to your house and pray with you and tell you that I forgive you for what your husband did. Seems to me that 'Christians' seem a little more convicted of the 'turn the other cheek' golden rule principles.
Too the Koran Qu'ran has never changed and where in the book does
Allah speak to the people and tell them these things.
Yes if you take bits and pieces of the OT you can assume the violent nature of the Judeo-Christian faith, but it changes in the NT. Where does the muslims book change? You can take bits and pieces of the whole book and come to the same conclusion.
The problem with these debates is that 'perception is reality' to many people. What about the image the American people get from the nut jobs in Kansas who claim to be 'Christian' and the reaction of the Amish to the same tragedy. What is one to glean from these examples?
I think we need to also be careful not to categorize an entire people by the actions of a few. I'd hate for everyone to assume that all Christians are as hateful and unloving as the members of Westboro Baptist "church".
True.
Jason,
I do not think all Muslims are violent. I do think the devout ones that study and take the Koran literally are violent in spreading their faith. From what I have gathered (studying the history, reading the Koran, and watching today's Muslims) many Muslims that are the peaceful ones are almost always the Sunni (85% of religion). Also many of these have never even read the Koran or know what is taught in it. Many of these people are Muslims in name, but I would bet since I can name the 5 pillars and know some about the Koran, I actually know more about their religion than they would.
I think that is where the "Americanized" Muslims come into play. Many of these people are peaceful, and so we assume that they would represent the entire religion. However, a closer inspection of them would show that many probably can't even spell Jihad, or Qu'ran, much less know much about it.
BTW: I enjoy discussing with you. You may think differently than I, but are always respectful.
ummm someone needs to inform that leader that we're not in the middle ages anymore. what a freak. gah. those verses sound like something out of Judges...
Youre so anti sematic or whatever the word is kenny. gah. tolerance is the key. I mean look at me, I live beside terrorists. ;)
I think this is an important discussion. If you look at the history of both Christianity and Islam, someone could probably come to the conclusion that BOTH religions are violent in nature. There are some who point to the violent death of Jesus on the cross as proof that the God of Christianity is not as loving and peaceful as we make him out to be. I would disagree, of course, but I've heard that side of the argument.
But that doesn't really answer your original question. A mentor of mine once warned me that Islam was a violent religion and it would be the greatest evil our generation would have to face in this nation. I honestly don't know what to make of that statement. Unfortunately, his statement gave me justification for villifying Muslims in my mind. It also made me very cautious about things I say to people I mentor.
I enjoy these conversations, too.
Hey Kenny -
I know I'm joining this discussion late but I wanted to make a quick comment.
Also, let me say from the start that I haven't read the first page of the Qur'an. In fact, I have only read a few secondary sources on the subject.
But here's my quick point with regards to my own holy book.
We often think that God's preference for peace suddenly comes about in the New Testament. But in fairness, there is a change from war to peace even in the Old Testament that we often discount and postpone until the incarnation. We generally assume that God is angry in the Old Testament and is quick to commission war against the savages, but I pretty sure that's not the case. Even though war is permitted and commissioned it is the exception, and not the rule to God's people.
In fact, the entire idea of God's people being commissioned to war against the nations is limited to a relatively small section of Scripture. By the time we make it to the Prophets, peaceful existence is the hope and expectations of God's people.
That's why we have to be careful to not paint in broad strokes in regard to ancient texts, especially texts that we have very little context from which to read.
If the religious leaders who guide and inform 85% of the Muslims have found a method for interpreting a peaceful reading of Islam's holy texts, then I think we need to be careful not to pass them off as non-committed, misreading, Muslims.
As it has been stated already on the blog, many Christians and non-Christians misread the Old Testament as a license for a violent theology of God.
wow. its like i said at lunch on sunday...
I have avoided jumping on this issue in a blog because it is so easy to be misunderstood without a dialogue. But I can't resist sharing a few thoughts. On the issue of perceiving Christianity as not peaceful, we should be able to agree that God indeed instructed the killing of entire nations because they did not believe in the one true God and He knew His people could not ever live at peace with them in the same land. Always, the ultimate goal was peace with God and with each other. Some would say that is what Muslims teach today. But it simply is not. They believe in one God but are determined to kill all who do not follow the modern day prophet Mahammed. Yes, there were times during the crusades when, in the name of Christianity, many were killed for having a different belief. In my mind, here is the major difference; someone today may begin killing others who do not believe the way they do in the name of God/Christ but what would my response be? I would protest boldly. If the occasion presented itself I would stand in the way of someone so misguided. Just as with Muslims, Christians can be misguided or selfish or just evil. The difference is the response of the mainstream believers. Christians as a group would simply not tolerate Vaughn Park's youth group fire-bombing Frazer Methodist's building because we disagree on some doctrinal matter. Can you imagine the response if we decided that since this is a "Christian nation" founded on Biblical principles we would simply kill all Muslims living in the USA and teaching lies? Can you imagine if we organized our schools to teach our small children that the greatest honor would be to personally kill the elected leader of a middle eastern country because they are Muslim? Can you imagine if a wacky splinter group claiming to be Christian trained young men to strap bombs to themselves and blow up gathering places of Muslims along with anybody else who happened to be in the area? We, the Christian community, would simply not allow those things to be done in the name of Christianity! We would protest and speak out and make every effort to prohibit such behavior. Where is that bold uprising among the Muslims? Even those "peaceful Muslims" living among us in the USA may say to individuals at work and next door that they believe the killing is wrong. But when they gather out of hearing of the "infidels" what is said and what is done to demonstrate outrage at the senseless killing? To me that is where the "broad strokes" are appropriate. If, by and large, the hateful killing of innocent people because of their belief that Mahammed was a liar is accepted on any level, then these are people not at peace with God and not at peace with me. They have declared me their enemy because I believe in Jesus and not in Mahammed. The difference is I have no desire to kill them and they believe it is their duty to kill me. Jesus said we would encounter that. He taught me to fight it with love and example even if it cost me my life. He did not tell me, however, to foolishly believe they don't hate me and pretend "we can all just get along". For me to truly be at peace with Muslims they will have to change what they believe. They would say the same of me. The difference is the method of persuasion; suicide bomb or Sword of the Spirit.
Wow. Roxy, you say what I would like to say, but can't put into words.
Roxy -
Thanks for your passionate response re: Islamic extremism. I can't speak for others on this, but I'm not sure it's accurate to characterize my comments as foolish. There is no doubt that some who worship Allah have a violent end in mind with regards to “infidels.” It might also be true that there are some in Islam that have been given over to their own devices, and will ultimately choose to reject the invitation from God that came in the form of his son Jesus.
However, my primary concern is that we exercise extreme caution before we lump any and all Muslims in with the Islamic extremist who had rather kill the infidel that live next to them. You or I may have the vocabulary necessary to read the Qur’an, and yet lack the context to understand it. While there may be quite a bit of violence mentioned in their holy text, how do we explain the legitimate followers of Islam who have determined a peaceful reading from such a violent set of texts? Perhaps it is in the same way that we have dealt with the idea of war in the Old Testament or slavery in the New Testament. I would hope that none of us would use the New Testament as a source for condoning slavery today; but there it is in Paul’s writings. He doesn’t oppose it, or try to upend it. And yet we understand that slavery has no place in our society.
On another note, I especially appreciate your encouragement to allow the love of Jesus in our own lives to impact others we may not agree with (be they Muslims, other sects of Christianity, or pagans). It appears that Jesus embraced the path of love at all costs.
Not to speak for Roxy, but I would think his point was that if a Christian group used violence today, there would be many publicly saying they do not represent us and putting the revolt down. Where we do not see a public outcry among the leaders of the Muslim faith when there are terroristic threats.
What are we to do with the countless Islamic adherents who spoke against the terrorism displayed on 9-11 and then in London in the following years?
why is it that men are the only ones i see getting into these long discussions?
Because Women have too much to do, LOL.
Great discussion, son. The 'moderate' Muslims I've read interpret later verses in the Koran as the one in effect. The verses you quoted, according to them, are from the past and not relevant to today. IOW, the newer revelations replace the older. Very confusing religion in many way. And Roxy, you are right on. And TH, what??? multitude of Muslims condemning 9/11? When there are ? billions of adherants to the religion of Islam, the amount of protestors appears to me to be miniscule and not very encouraging. MamaKat
Post a Comment