Jump to content

Karen Armstrong On The Dangers Of Bush's Fundamentalism


mystictrek

Recommended Posts

If you are saying I misquoted the Qu'ran (which you seem to be) than feel free to re-insert the context you think I'm missing. The fact of the matter is that the Koran authorizes open-ended war against non-Muslims because allah has made Muslims the rulers of the Earth.

 

James, please document this and please don't quote a verse or 2 from the Qur'an out of context but show how the Qur'an really makes the case that Muslims should make war until they rule the world. It's an opinion held by many but I don't think the evidence for it really exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

***my quote tages didn't work, sorry, I hope it's still readable***

 

Well, apparently mystictrek doesn't believe that Islam sanctions violence. Let's start with the koranic verses and then move onto the example of Mohammed.

 

Let's examine a few of the quotes often used by Muslims and their apologists (Muslim or dhimmi) to show that Islam is peaceful.

 

A quick refresher of my point, the Koran and the example of Mohammed allow an open-ended military struggle against non-Muslims.

 

First things first, it is important to note the order in which the suras of the Koran were received by Mohammed, the later the revelation, the more important in understanding the whole Koran. Thus, the latter suras are seen as either key to understanding contradictory passages and/or abrogate earlier passages.

 

One of the most violent suras in the entire Koran is sura 9, The Ultimatum or Repentance. It was the second to last of all the suras which were given to Mohammed as such it is to be taken as more definitive in the instructions to the ummah in the teachings on war. I'll spare everyone the tedium of reproducing all 127 verses as they are easy enough to find on your own.

 

4 Except to those of the idolaters with whom ye have made a league, and who then have not failed you at all, and have not back-ed up any one against you. Fulfil for them then your covenant until the time agreed upon with them; verily, God loves those who fear.

5 But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, God is forgiving and merciful.

 

In verse 4 Muslims are forbidden for fighting against those who have completly submitted to the authority of the Muslim rulers. Their status as

dhimmi
protects their life, but not their rights. Otherwise, according to verse 5, well, I don't think any explanation is needed.

 

29 Fight those who believe not in God and in the last day, and who forbid not what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought, until they pay the tribute by their hands and be as little ones.

 

Could this be clearer? What context can I provide, read through them yourselves, as difficult as they are as narrative, it is incredibly clear what is being authorized here.

 

30 The Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say that the Messiah is the son of God; that is what they say with their mouths, imitating the sayings of those who misbelieved before. God fight them! How they lie!

31 They take their doctors and their monks for lords rather than God, and the Messiah the son of Mary; but they are bidden to worship but one God, there is no god but He; celebrated be His praise, from what they join with Him!

32 They desire to put out the light of God with their mouths, but God will not have it but that we should perfect His light, averse although the misbelievers be!

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it though, after all I'm a liar because the Koran says so.

 

36 Verily, the number of months with God is twelve months in God’s Book, on the day when He created the heavens and the earth; of these are four that are sacred; that is the subsisting religion. Then do not wrong yourselves therein, but fight the idolaters one and all, as they fight you one and all, and know that God is with those who fear.

 

38 O ye who believe, what ailed you when ye were told to march forth in God’s way, that ye sank down heavily upon the earth? Were ye content with the life of this world instead of the next? But the provision of this world’s life is but a little to the next.

39 Unless ye march forth He will punish you with grievous woe, and will put in. your stead a people other than you! Ye cannot hurt Him at all, for God is mighty over all!

 

Muslims are commanded to fight, if they don't fight they will be punished with "greivous woe".

 

74 O thou prophet, strive strenuously against the misbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them; for their resort is hell, and an ill journey shall it be.

 

112 Verily, God hath bought of the believers their persons and their wealth, for the paradise they are to have; they shall fight in the way of God, and they shall slay and be slain: promised in truth, in the law and the gospel and the Koran;- and who is more faithful to His covenant than God?

 

124 O ye who believe, fight those who are near to you of the misbelievers, and let them find in you sternness; and know that God is with those who fear.

 

Let's look at a few of the verses which are used to make Islam look all kittens and rainbows. You will notice there is a certain useful exception written into all the forbidding of killing.

 

[6.151] Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you-- (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty-- We provide for you and for them-- and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

 

[17.33] And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.

 

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

 

The problem of course, is that jihadi groups claim that the are fighting those who are committing injustice. How is injustice defined? Anything which prevents the establishment and supremacy of Islam is seen as an injustice.

 

Let's look at some of the collected sayings of Mohammed, these are also very important as they are necessary for understanding certain parts of the Koran (and are normative as Mohammed is the perfect model of a human being)

 

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah. (Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24 [see also 4:52:196])

 

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, 1:31 [see also 1:130, 1:32, 1:33])

 

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2635)

 

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:65 [see also 9:93:550 and Sahih Muslim, 20:4684, 20:4685, 20:4686, 20:4687])

 

But why should jihad be waged for the propagation of the faith?

 

The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it." (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:50 [see also 4:52:51, 4:52:52, and Sahih Muslim, 20:4643])

 

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing but Jihad in His Cause and belief in His Word, that He will admit him into Paradise (if martyred) or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty." (Sahih Bukhari, 4:53:352 [see also 9:93:549, 9:93:555, and 1:2:35 which adds: "...and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."])

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: Allah has undertaken to provide for one who leaves his home (only) to fight for His cause and to affirm the truth of His word; Allah will either admit him to Paradise or will bring him back home from where he had come out, with his reward and booty. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4628)

 

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:73 [see also 4:52:210, and Sahih Muslim, 20:4681])

 

Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone fights in Allah's path as long as the time between two milkings of a she-camel, Paradise will be assured for him. If anyone sincerely asks Allah for being killed and then dies or is killed, there will be a reward of a martyr for him. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2535)

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say:... "By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in His way." (Sahih Muslim, 20:4631 [see also 20:4626])

 

Wow, if that's what my religion taught, I wouldn't want to waste any time.

 

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates). (Sahih Muslim, 20:4678)

 

But perhaps after all of this I am being unfair, maybe Mohammed didn't only give the choice fo conversion or death.

 

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master. (Sahih Bukhari, 4:53:386)

 

I couldn't find any concrete category for this one, but thought it worth including.

 

Muhammad (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: ‘There is no god but Allah,’ but I attacked him with a spear anyway. It once occurred to me that I should ask the Apostle about this. The Messenger said: ‘Did he profess “There is no god but Allah,” and even then you killed him?’ I said: ‘He made a profession out of the fear of the weapon I was threatening him with.’ The Prophet said: ‘Did you tear out his heart in order to find out whether it had professed truly or not? (Shahih Muslim 10:1:176)

 

If I have still not provided the context you deem necessary to understand these quotations from the Koran and the Hadith, please to insert them so I don't keep making a fool of myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have still not provided the context you deem necessary to understand these quotations from the Koran and the Hadith, please to insert them so I don't keep making a fool of myself.

 

Perhaps, James, the point Mystictrek is trying to make is that Muslims, like Christians, always have it within their power to choose to love their neighbour as themselves, and set to right the wrongs of the world by showing compassion, wisdom, and charity. The Bible is filled with verses that many Christians today simply shudder at. Perhaps you could consider finding and sharing with the rest of us examples of people from other faiths around the world who have given their lives in service, and made the world a better place. We could all use some positive role models to admire and learn from.

 

Jesus

October 10, 2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jen. I really haven't read enough of the Koran to know about passages

about peace. We know for sure there are warlike passages in the Bible, and also

passages that condone things like slavery, etc.

 

One thing I do know is that as long as we don't really talk with each other, we

will always be at war. And unless we talk we bring out the worst in each other.

 

 

GWB went to war in Iraq with the blessings of many right wing Christians who

felt his was a holy war. We don't have much hope as a species if we are

constantly at war with each other.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi des and jen:

 

I remember reading an article in a magazine about ,why humans love war. If I remember correctly it compared war to a drug, that humanity can become addicted to. There may even be some changes in the brain chemistry of a population that is at war . In war people become attached to a cause larger then themselves, and it can give them a sense of trancendence. People in the war can do things they'd never do in "ordinary" life, i.e. jump out of airplanes, jump on exploding hand grenades , kill without remorse etc. One writer has tried to make it clear that the comradirie we feel in war , is not the same has friendship or love.

 

I think some on the religious right thought the war on Iraq would bring about the rapture and the apocalypse.

 

 

MOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate what everyone is saying of course, and agree with most of it. The decision to commit violent acts, go to war, blow up children on a bus etc. are all moral acts which a person makes. They are not and cannot be FORCED to do so. However, these decisions are made with various backgrounds (theological, emotional, etc.) my point was (in my original post, an attempted fisking of Karen Armstrong) that Islam contains within its scriptures and the example of its prophet create an environment more conducive to violence as it lends a divine backing/command to fighting the infidel.

 

I hope and pray that more muslims will abandon these scriptures and prophet so as to make it easier for them to choose peaceful lives and combinations with those around them.

 

And one last little thing, and I'll once say this one more time, violence in the Bible (particularly OT) is geared towards specific targets at specific times. Nothing in the OT authorizes or encourages open-ended fighting against non-Jews. Further and more specifically, the OT law has been superceded by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross so all the bits in the law about killing and stoning etc. are moot for Christians. Finally, the Jesus the Christ never advocates fighting, as I have noted repeatedly, Christians in war find themselves making certain compromises (although sometimes for good reason, defending the poor and weak for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Harris, in "The End of Faith", agrees with you on Islam. Of course, he includes most organized religions (except Buddhism for the most part). He says they mostly agree with one book over others and think one faith is right vs others. In this environment, it is likely we will conflict. Without religion we could call on our mutual humanity to solve problems.

 

Harris does a good job of summing up the various attrocities set forth in the name of religion and details the

religious source code for these actions in a much better way than I could.

 

The problem as he sees it is more with the extremes (or fundamentalists) of each, but that moderates play a role in tolerating unreasoned discourse, and "allowing" the views of fundamentalists equal space in social intercourse.

 

The only hope for humanity, and he apparently doesn't hold out much, is that we give all religion (and other

tribal type beliefs like facism or communism) up for a shared worldview.

 

 

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam Harris, in "The End of Faith", agrees with you on Islam. Of course, he includes most organized religions (except Buddhism for the most part). He says they mostly agree with one book over others and think one faith is right vs others. In this environment, it is likely we will conflict. Without religion we could call on our mutual humanity to solve problems.

 

Harris does a good job of summing up the various attrocities set forth in the name of religion and details the

religious source code for these actions in a much better way than I could.

 

The problem as he sees it is more with the extremes (or fundamentalists) of each, but that moderates play a role in tolerating unreasoned discourse, and "allowing" the views of fundamentalists equal space in social intercourse.

 

The only hope for humanity, and he apparently doesn't hold out much, is that we give all religion (and other

tribal type beliefs like facism or communism) up for a shared worldview.

--des

 

I think the challenge Sam Harris makes to Moderates and Progressives and even Conservatives who aren't fanatics is valid and we need to heed it. We do need to challenge and hopefully change our fanatics and fools as do Muslim Moderates and Progressives and Conservatives and people of all faiths.

 

It is interesting that in Iraq we took out a secularist regime, not a Muslim regime. The new regime or regimes may be extremist Muslim.

 

Oh how we need to talk to all of these people in all kinds of ways. We need so much more understanding.

Stephen Covey puts it so well in the fifth habit of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Seek first to understand and then to be understood.

 

James, I am going to share your post with my Muslim friends and see how they respond. I do believe muhammad was probably dealing with a local situation rather than a call for global Jihad. All politics is local! Religion is always invoked by politicians. Politics is always a concern for an authentic religion. The call to violence is unfortunately found throughout human history and all of our wisdom traditions are intricately connected to the evil as well as the good. Christian scripture has been used to justify all kinds of violence and hatred and intolerance.

 

I think some on the religious right thought the war on Iraq would bring about the rapture and the apocalypse.

 

If Iraq can't do it, Iran can!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with everything Sam Harris says (obviously or I wouldn't be here), but I think that he makes some valid statements that we should pay attention to. There are people on many sides that come from a brand of religion we don't buy or value but they may, indeed, determine the future of our civilization.

 

BTW, Sam Harris quotes an interesting tidbit about the 7 virgins supposedly in heaven. According to one translation the "virgins" may be incorrect, and the true meaning may actually be "white raisins", a kind of delicacy in the ancient world (may follow also as the land is supposedly flowing with milk and honey,etc. other food images. Anyway, he has us imagine the terrorists actually landing in heaven after their deeds and expecting the virgins and instead getting a huge pile of raisins!! :-)

 

 

 

-des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***my quote tages didn't work, sorry, I hope it's still readable***

 

Well, apparently mystictrek doesn't believe that Islam sanctions violence. Let's start with the koranic verses and then move onto the example of Mohammed.

 

Dear James,

 

As promised I have shared your argument about the Qur'an demanding violence against all non-Muslims until the world is Islamic in a Yahoo! interfaith dialogue group which includes many Muslims. Several have responded to your arguments with some very lengthy and informed posts. Rather than pasting a lot of script here, I suggest you join that group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InterfaithDialogueCenter and deal with these wonderful people directly.

 

Let's not forget that you can interpret Christian scripture and Jewish scripture in ways which seem to support a global takeover by the one true religion, either Messianic Christianity or Messianic Judaism. Let's have Armageddon so we can get on with the Rapture!!!

 

A literal interpretation of the Christian scripture leads many to believe every one on earth must become a Christian to be saved. Many have used the sword to promote this misguided agenda.

 

Following is a portion of a post I wrote today at a Yahoo! group on Conservative-Liberal debate where some of the Right Wingers have a very one-sided approach to the current and historical complicated situation in the Middle East:

 

Yes there are Islamic radicals who have a vision of an Islamic world.

 

Maybe you don't realize that there are Christian fanatics who have a vision of a Christian world.

 

And Jewish fanatics who have a vision of a Jewish world.

 

I don't believe most Christians are ready to force the world to become Christian. I don't believe most Muslims are ready to force the world to become Muslim. I don't believe most Jews are ready to force the world to become Jewish.

 

The fanatics do need to be opposed. But I am for changing minds slowly but surely rather than for wiping out fanatics. Patience is required. A willingness to listen to all people is required. A willingness to be open to new ideas and a very comprehensive interpretation of history where we come to realize the US and UK and Israel and others in the West do not have the moral high ground after all. A willingness to become humble and admit mistakes and change destructive policies.

 

I am convinced that the fanaticism of Christians and Muslims and Jews and others can be reduced dramatically if we change our approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mystic,

 

Thanks for the response, I was wondering if you were ever going to come back (haha). I appreciate ven more that you are trying to find out whether what I have written is true, seek and ye shall find.

 

Unfortuantely, you have made the same mistake that so many other posters here ahve been making in this thread. The simple fact that Christians, Jews (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) have committed violent acts to spread their religions (or for any other reason) is not equivalent to the command in the Koran and the Hadith of Mohammed to violent subdue the non-Muslim world. Jesus did not command his disciples to give conquered peoples (He actually never said to conquer physically either) the choice between second-call citizenship with special taxes and distinctive clothing (gee, what does that remind us of?), conversion or death. Mohammed did.

 

I too hope that many Muslims will either abandon their religion or become "moderates" (ie: they will follow its commands less strictly) but I don't confuse their poor practice with the actual tenets of Islam.

 

This last bit is intended to be somewhat rhetorical (but some answers to it would be great). Why is that so many progressives cannot/will not see the difference that exists between comitting violence because your religion commands it and committing violence despite what your religion commands? Is it just an excessive focus on the ends and not the means/reasons? Aren't you the root cause people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortuantely, you have made the same mistake that so many other posters here ahve been making in this thread. The simple fact that Christians, Jews (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) have committed violent acts to spread their religions (or for any other reason) is not equivalent to the command in the Koran and the Hadith of Mohammed to violent subdue the non-Muslim world. Jesus did not command his disciples to give conquered peoples (He actually never said to conquer physically either) the choice between second-call citizenship with special taxes and distinctive clothing (gee, what does that remind us of?), conversion or death. Mohammed did.

 

 

James,

 

Perhaps you are forgetting the Old Testament did also contain such commands to destroy non-believers. Isn't it still a part of your Bible? How is it any different? It also contains things that border on genocide. For example read this command of Moses

 

Numbers 31:14-18

And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. [15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? [16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. [17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. [18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

Jesus may have given no such commands but you still have a book that can be interpreted by some as violent as your references in the Koran as part of your Bible. Here it even says God commanded the destruction of these people.

 

Deut. 20:17

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

 

Is this the same God of Love that the New Testament speaks of? Perhaps we who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones at the Koran and Muslims.

 

Just a thought to consider,

Love in Christ,

JM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones at the Koran and Muslims.

 

Those are very sage words indeed.

 

Just take a look at the book of Joshua. Notice that Joshua commited, according to the Bible, divinely ordained acts of genocide against the people of Jericho and Ai. The Bible says that God assisted in the massacre at Jericho by telling Joshua how to go about invoking a miraculous destruction of the city walls. Then the fun came:

 

And at the seventh time, when the priests had blown the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, "Shout! For the LORD has given you the city. The city and all that is in it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall live because she hid the messengers we sent. As for you, keep away from the things devoted to destruction, so as not to covet and take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel an object for destruction, bringing trouble upon it. But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.

 

Not only was every single person in the city massacred, they also killed all the animals! The Bible reports that Joshua then pronounced a curse on the ruins and the proclaims, "So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land."

 

Lest there is any doubt that the Bible was asserting that God endorsed this kind of genocide, shortly thereafter, the Bible has God telling Joshua, Do not fear or be dismayed; take all the fighting men with you, and go up now to Ai. See, I have handed over to you the king of Ai with his people, his city, and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king.

 

In other words, God was directly telling Joshua to commit another act of genocide, killing everyone in the city--men, women, and yes, children.

 

And that is precisely what Joshua did, according to the Bible:

 

When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai, and attacked it with the edge of the sword. The total of those who fell that day, both men and women, was twelve thousand — all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the sword, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as their booty, according to the word of the LORD that he had issued to Joshua.

 

This is all pretty offensive to modern ears. Now I am not a biblical literalist, and I don't believe for a minute that God really ordains war crimes or genocide. It is hard to know how much of what is depicted in Joshua actually happened anyway. I do think that these accounts reflect a certain theological understanding that the author or authors of those biblical passages had about God's role in history, and it also reflects a historical record of how the author(s) were trying to convey their understanding of God. So even though I am offended by the pro-genocide message of those passages, I am willing to consider them in that light. That is the advantage of not being a believer in biblical inerrancy; when one isn't forced to accept that the entire Bible is the literal word of God, one doesn't have to be an apologist for atrocities.

 

The point remains, in any case, about those glass houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus may have given no such commands but you still have a book that can be interpreted by some as violent as your references in the Koran as part of your Bible.

JosephM,

You are right that certain Old Testament passages could be interpreted by some as a command by God to make perpetual war against unbelievers. But where are these people? As James already pointed out, a person would have to ignore later revelation, as well as the context of the text itself, to arrive at such a conclusion. It stretches credulity to think that a rational person would interpret the text this way. Not surpisingly, this theoretical scenario just hasn't manifested itself. Anyone espousing such doctrine is likely living in a compound somewhere in Idaho, if he even exists.

 

On the other hand, the situation is quite different for Islamic radicalism. The theoretical has become a reality. There are real people in the Middle East who are blowing up and beheading innocents because they believe that "Allah wills it".

 

Just take a look at the book of Joshua. . . This is all pretty offensive to modern ears.

Mystical Seeker,

I agree, it seems offensive to our modern, Christian ears, which is why we wouldn't consider doing something like that today. The Islamic extremists, apparently, aren't constrained by these "modern" sensibilities, because they're practicing the very same thing right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mystical Seeker,

I agree, it seems offensive to our modern, Christian ears, which is why we wouldn't consider doing something like that today. The Islamic extremists, apparently, aren't constrained by these "modern" sensibilities, because they're practicing the very same thing right now.

The problem is that it was not just the behavior of certain people that was being used to justify this attack against an entire religion; it was specifically the Quran that was being used as a proof text to justify this critique of Islam. My point is that if a Christian, particularly one who thinks that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, is going to use the scriptures of another religion to paint it in negative tones, then the whole issue of glass houses applies--the scriptures that are part of the Christian and Jewish canons claim that God ordered people to commit genocide. If you use someone else's scriptures to talk about how bad the religion is, then that opens up your own scriptures for similar criticism. You can't have it both ways.

 

And let's face it; what the book of Joshua claims about God is barbaric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JosephM,

You are right that certain Old Testament passages could be interpreted by some as a command by God to make perpetual war against unbelievers. But where are these people? As James already pointed out, a person would have to ignore later revelation, as well as the context of the text itself, to arrive at such a conclusion. It stretches credulity to think that a rational person would interpret the text this way. Not surpisingly, this theoretical scenario just hasn't manifested itself. Anyone espousing such doctrine is likely living in a compound somewhere in Idaho, if he even exists.

 

On the other hand, the situation is quite different for Islamic radicalism. The theoretical has become a reality. There are real people in the Middle East who are blowing up and beheading innocents because they believe that "Allah wills it".

 

DCJ,

 

These people were around in great numbers during the crusades and some of them are still around today. I have a pastor friend who thinks we should go over and kill off all the muslims as they are in his words heathen. If he were president he says he would. There are also killers in the US that read the Old testament and then say God told them to kill people. There are also radical Christians who think the Iraqui's are getting what they deserve. We, under George Bush have taken more than our share of lifes both in Afganistan and Iraq under the pretense of retribution for 911 and the threat of terrorism and it is done as if we are doing God's work. We may never know the real motives. The majority of Muslims are kind and peaceful and the Koran in generasl is a book of love and obedience to God. Lets not argue number of radicals. The point is you can't judge a people because of their religious book. The religious book didn't make the people. Those who would commit such atrocities will do so regardless of their "Bible". They will interpret it to fit their lusts. Most Christians don't even believe or know all that is written in the Bible and it is the same with Muslims. They are God's as much as you and me. We even have Christians who think it was a good thing that the hurricane destroyed New Orleans and the area as they believe that it was sin city. They use the Bible to justify their belief. They didn't pull a trigger but they would support killing if they thought God told our leaders to do so.

 

If you disagree with what I have written, that is fine. It is only a perception and subject to error on my part. Besides, I love everyone including those who have and will do these things. May all judgement cease and forgiveness and love and peace take its place.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless, you are a Jainist or a Buddhist, you can't really argue who's books are less

violent. There are violent and highly aggressive images in many books of the Hebrew

Bible (and to some extent the New Testament). These have been used to justify everything

from wars to slavery to murder of "witches" to Inquisitions. Some people today are wishing

for the return of Jesus Christ who will bring on a war and atrocities that would make Hitler wince.

Everytime they see a tsumani or earthquake or a Katrina they are thinking that in some small

part of their mind, this is wonderful, we are so much closer to the end times.

 

What in some cases we are seeing is more of a 14th Century Islam. But I wouldn't get

too self-righteous, as there are elements of 14th C Christianity alive and well.

 

The only thing that "saves" Christianity and Judaism is modernity. Most of us do not read these

ancient texts this way. Now if modernity would only hit Islam.

There has also been a recent reversion from modernity in Christianity.

 

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread but it has strayed a bit from the original idea, and if everyone is learning and having fun, that is O.K.

 

Russ, I think, several posts back was getting to the heart of the matter regarding the original premise, Karen Armstrong's article on apocalyptic vision of the current administration.

 

I think we should consider that Bush isn't all that spiritual or evangelical. He is a politician. He has been surrounded from the get go by people like Karl Rove who have measured what sells and what doesn't sell to the public. Texas is heavily fundamentalits so W became a fundamentalist. He supposedly had a lengthy meeting with Billy Graham and accepted Jesus into his heart. He supposedly gave up drinking (although he was seen several times with beer at gatherings after his so called conversion and cessation of drinking) These were all good moves to get elected Governor of Texas. Ronald Reagen's religiousty suddently increased when he was about to enter national politics.

 

I suspect Mr Bush's real religion is power, money, war, and greed. We want to take Grandma and Grandpas Social Security and give to the rich guys on Wall Street to gamble with doesn't sell well to the public. Neither does we want to cut veteran's services, WIC, and the school lunch program so we can give tax breaks to the wealthy and the big oil companies. We want to kill Hugo Chavez and take Venezuela's oil doesn't go over well either with our self image as the big warm fuzzy Santa Claus of the world.So it is all about God, religion, flying old glory at the courthouse, etc.

 

Iraq has oil, Iran has oil,Israel is a strong well armed ally in an area of the world that has great geopolitical

significance. if they can manipulate the fundies into believing this is all part of God's plan, its just a another con job and not about Bush feeling he is doing God's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread but it has strayed a bit from the original idea, and if everyone is learning and having fun, that is O.K.

 

Russ, I think, several posts back was getting to the heart of the matter regarding the original premise, Karen Armstrong's article on apocalyptic vision of the current administration.

 

I think we should consider that Bush isn't all that spiritual or evangelical. He is a politician. He has been surrounded from the get go by people like Karl Rove who have measured what sells and what doesn't sell to the public. Texas is heavily fundamentalits so W became a fundamentalist. He supposedly had a lengthy meeting with Billy Graham and accepted Jesus into his heart. He supposedly gave up drinking (although he was seen several times with beer at gatherings after his so called conversion and cessation of drinking) These were all good moves to get elected Governor of Texas. Ronald Reagen's religiousty suddently increased when he was about to enter national politics.

 

I suspect Mr Bush's real religion is power, money, war, and greed. We want to take Grandma and Grandpas Social Security and give to the rich guys on Wall Street to gamble with doesn't sell well to the public. Neither does we want to cut veteran's services, WIC, and the school lunch program so we can give tax breaks to the wealthy and the big oil companies. We want to kill Hugo Chavez and take Venezuela's oil doesn't go over well either with our self image as the big warm fuzzy Santa Claus of the world.So it is all about God, religion, flying old glory at the courthouse, etc.

 

Iraq has oil, Iran has oil,Israel is a strong well armed ally in an area of the world that has great geopolitical

significance. if they can manipulate the fundies into believing this is all part of God's plan, its just a another con job and not about Bush feeling he is doing God's will.

 

Very interesting post.

 

It is possible that Mr Bush's real religion which you describe as "power, money, war, and greed" is a subconscious archetypal force which he can easily dismiss because of his ability to practice denial (learned as an addict). He may be very sincere and very misguided. I think it is likely that he is being used by other Plutocrats who spotted a good experienced cheerleader for their cause. He did not disappoint until Katrina came along and now the growing Iraq quagmire.

 

I am hopeful that a significant portion of the Religious Right is beginning to come to their senses and that the GOP will not be able to exploit them as much in next month's congressional election and in future elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service