Can Islam catch up?
It's a question I often hear from tolerant but anxious Christians. Their anxiety is entirely understandable. Islam's extremist offshoots give rise to the most frequent, merciless and vile acts of terrorism in our times.
Hard on the heels of a botched attempt to bomb Times Square comes a sophisticated effort to bring down jumbo jets with cartridge bombs. There seems little reason to doubt that this is the handiwork of al Qaeda.
In the face of such threats, Christians (and Jews, Hindus and others) will ask again, "Can Islam catch up with the moral progress we've made?" The question betrays a misunderstanding of how religions work and people behave.
If by moral progress, we mean treating all people with basic respect and creating more equitable social structures, Christianity has undeniably made moral progress. For example, it no longer burns "witches" or endorses slavery.
On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian West has bombed the bejesus out of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Lebanon and the Palestinian territories), killing far more civilians than have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists operating in the West. (Additionally, let us note, more Americans have been killed in these futile wars than died at the hands of Islamic terrorists.) While the war in Iraq is finally winding down (for us, at least), we continue to drop more than 100 tons of bombs per month on Afghanistan.
Did the Bible make us do it? Clearly not. We certainly heard plenty of biblical rhetoric in the campaign for war, but the reasons were much closer to hand than anything in ancient scriptures: the 9/11 attacks, the eagerness of the pro-Israel lobby to see Iraq defanged, the personal animus of George W. Bush toward a dictator who had launched an assassination plot against his father and, not least, the big opportunities for war-profiteering spotted by Halliburton, the Veritas Capital, Blackwater and other buttresses of the clan Bush.
So, why should we suppose that the Islamist terrorists' motives for bombings are any holier than our own? We shouldn't. To think that the Quran causes terrorism is not only to misjudge the scripture but to miss the chance for peace.
Let me say it plainly: To accept that the terrorist masterminds who are warring against the West in the name of Allah are waging a holy war is to give them far too much credit. They have more in common with Lenin and Stalin than with Mohammed. I don't mean that Osama bin Laden is a communist, but rather that he and his ilk are exploiting the Quran in the ruthless pursuit of power, much the way Lenin and Stalin exploited the writings of Marx and Engels to become absolute and absolutely vicious dictators.
Just as thousands of dupes at all levels of society -- even in the British aristocracy -- were lulled into doing the Soviets' dirty work by the promise of a workers' paradise, so today thousands of Muslims are recruited into the horrific game of terrorism by a promise of another paradise, one derived from a mishmash of Quranic verses and contemporary propaganda.
This is, frankly, terrifying. But it is an epic error to blame the source material rather than its exploiters. People have always used scriptures to suit their purposes, whether peaceful or belligerent. Don't take my word for it. Instead, read Robert Wright's landmark book, The Evolution of God.
Wright takes great and truly scholarly pains to illuminate the relationship of theology, morality, politics and technology. What he shows -- quite convincingly -- is that theology does not determine attitudes and behavior, but rather the reverse. At any given time, people in power interpret theology to meet their needs in relation to "facts on the ground."
When the ancient Israelite leaders see an opportunity for conquest, Wright points out, Yaweh is all for it:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. (Deuteronomy 7)
On the other hand, when the Persians have freed the Jews from exile in Babylon and set them back in their lands alongside other members of the Persian empire, Yaweh becomes a "live and let live" sort of god.
It is much the same with the Quran, Wright convincingly argues. When Mohammed is leading his followers in a life-or-death struggle against polytheistic enemies, the corresponding passages of the Koran are bloodthirsty. When the prophet is trying to make alliance with Christians and Jews, the passages are at their most tolerant.
But even at their oft-quoted "kill the infidels" worst, Wright points out, the Quranic injunctions to war do not amount to wholesale commands for contemporary Muslims to commit slaughter, anymore than contemporary Jews are compelled to seek out and destroy Jebusites.
These were specific orders for a specific war against specific polytheists, he says. The proof is in the surrounding passages, which instruct Muslims not to harm those polytheists with whom Mohammed has already made treaties, and in the explicit passages about the salvation of Christians and Jews.
The basic point is that Islam is no more inherently belligerent than any other religion. Sadly, no major religion has managed to remain pacificist, and no nation has gone to war without committing atrocities.
But merely to acknowledge that scriptures don't cause wars is not enough. We have to actively counter the exploitation of scriptures to inspire terror, atrocity and war. Invoking God in your cause is an especially effective way to make others do terrible deeds. Passion is powerful. Words work.
How can Christians of good will do that? Put aside your generalized fears of Islam. Muslims of good will live and work among us and lead lives very much like yours. They play sports, serve in the armed forces, do volunteer work, have family celebrations and so forth. I know. I've lived in the Muslim world, and today I employ Muslims and consider some my friends.They're people, like any other.
So, reject Islamophobia in favor of terror-o-phobia. The enemy is not a certain religion but barbaric practices done in its name. I cannot do better in urging this than to quote President George W. Bush, who for all his tragic mistakes, was absolutely right about one thing: "The face of terror is not the true face of Islam."
If you fail to heed those words, the terrorists win. I don't mean that Osama bin Laden becomes dictator, but rather that a billion and a half Muslims and 2 billion Christians become enemies here and around the world. That would truly be apocalypse now.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Azeem Ibrahim: The Biggest Lies About Islam
Islamophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism | Hoover Institution
Religious terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read more: http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Anton%E2%8093Babinski_syndrome#ixzz15VDXGXnt)
naff ignores the reality that scripture condones violence often and sees instead a false image of non-aggressive proselytization when history chronicles the forced conversion of non-believers to the loving religions of christianity, islam, buddhism and others. death to heretics and blasphemers seems par for most sects.
we kid ourselves and avoid honest intellectual discussion by trying to defend our own religious believes.
Regards,
Clay
Thanks for playing.
Sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within a particular religion; and external ones, such as the requirement to proselytize or to kill or ill-treat outsiders, that impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.
In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not the primary causes of global conflict. Rather, the external, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global conflict.
It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion's doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.
In other words, a given religion's right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon its responsibility to leave outsiders alone.
People dont really understand what reformation actually means. For example, the Christian reformation gave us puritans and calvanists and so forth. Reformation means getting back to the 'purue religion. Like how the christian reformists were not upset with the catholic church for not being progressive enough (often the opposite), but that they were not following the religion perfectly enough.
There have actually been major islamic reformations, most recently it gave us Salafists and Wahabis.
I don't know that I believe that the extremists of any religion will be swayed by outsiders. Moderation or marginalization of the fringe must be done by the moderate forces within.
If not for "Scripture", what is the motivation for the terrorists? Why do all of the terrorist scream "GOD IS GREAT" in Arabic just before they kill themselves along with as many others as possible? Why are terrorists that commit these acts praised and honored for their deeds by family, friends, and even whole communities? It's because of Scripture, it's commandment for Jihad, and a weak mind to blindly follow it. That's why.
They all get the same pep talk. They're promised an eternity in Paradise, along with 72-virgins. Their scripture is responsible for everything they do, so why should terrorism in the name of their god be an exception?
It suggests that because say, a cop uses violence to arrest a criminal he himself is acting in a criminal way and is no better then the criminal.
It's a deeply flawed notion and way of thinking.
It's not the tactics one adopts and the means of fighting it's what people are fighting for.Keeping a scorecard of dead bodies is not the way to look at conflict and to decide who is bad and who is good.
To suggest Christianity is inherently violent would suggest that Jesus Christ went about slaughtering people and conquering territories he didn't.
That after 1085 years of Christianity,some Christians turn to organized violence during the crusades to liberate their holy places is not equal in nature to the Islamic Jihad first called by the Islamic prophet to conquer Mecca and then Arabia and then the world.
One is an aberration and corruption of Christianity. Jihad is as inherent to the religion of Islam as 5x a day prayer.Establishing a Islamic state is what Muhammad did in Medina.