Violence in the name of religion.
Violence in the name of religion is nothing new. The question we ask is this. Is violence either required or at least condoned in a given religious worldview?
The Gospel forbids the use of violence with one exception. Those who are government officials charged with protection of the innocent may use force to combat evildoers. The authorities “do not bear the sword in vain” said Saint Paul in Romans 13. But Jesus rebuked Peter when he drew a sword to defend Jesus from the mob that came to arrest him. And in Christian history heads of state (under the medieval popes) have been condemned for using force in the Crusades. The recent popes have apologized for this more than once. It is a denial of Jesus’ teaching.
Regarding Islam we find a different problem. While most Muslims are for peace, there seems to be a strain in the Koran and Hadith that may allow violence in matters of religion. Some say that Muhammad’s word of peace (there shall be no coercion in religion) came when he and his followers were weak in numbers and thus vulnerable. But when his armies were victorious and more powerful he spoke of smiting unbelievers who would not convert to Islam or accept the status of dhimmis. There is one example of the Prophet ordering an adulterous woman to be stoned to death, in contrast to the example of Jesus, who saved the life of a condemned adulteress with the words, “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”
Question 1. In our times, thousands of Muslim leaders call the USA (and the West in general) the Great Satan. Why would they say that of us who have spread freedom around the world and have sent billions in aid even to Islamic countries?
Question 2. And these same clerics justify mayhem and killing of their enemies, condoning lying and murder in the conflict with their enemies. Is there anything in the Koran to support such tactics? And even within Islam killing family members who desert the faith or disgrace the family name is justified by some Muslims. (See the following news article).
Question 3. What is the best answer to the question: does Islam by its texts and its founder’s example justify violence? (Note, in Islam there is no separation of religion and government. Islam advocates what is known technically as theocracy.
Silence over 'honor killing' stuns Islam critic
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/15/2008 4:00:00 AM
A critic of Islam says feminists in the U.S. are more concerned about fundamentalist Christians taking away their right to abort babies than they are the outrageous "honor killing" of an Islamic woman by her own father.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, recently wrote an article in Frontpage Magazine about the honor killing in Clayton County, Georgia. Police said Chaudhry Rashid, a Pakistani immigrant, claimed he strangled his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, in order to restore his family's honor. Rashid believed his daughter had sullied the family name by planning to divorce her husband to whom she had been given in an arranged marriage.
Spencer contends Americans must understand that this crime is the direct result of political correctness and a failure to confront the ugly realities of Islam. "We've let people into the country who believe it is justified for them to kill their daughters if they've sullied the honor of their family," he asserts. "And nobody is even facing the problem. Everybody is making excuses for it and saying it's not an Islamic problem, so the Islamic roots of it are unchallenged," argues Spencer.
He believes American liberals are more concerned about fundamentalist Christians. "Feminists seem to be more concerned about preserving their right to an abortion than about people who are doing things that are much more threatening to the equality of rights of women than anything the Christian fundamentalists are doing," Spencer adds.
Spencer states that no one will examine the question of unrestricted Islamic immigration in light of this problem.
The Gospel forbids the use of violence with one exception. Those who are government officials charged with protection of the innocent may use force to combat evildoers. The authorities “do not bear the sword in vain” said Saint Paul in Romans 13. But Jesus rebuked Peter when he drew a sword to defend Jesus from the mob that came to arrest him. And in Christian history heads of state (under the medieval popes) have been condemned for using force in the Crusades. The recent popes have apologized for this more than once. It is a denial of Jesus’ teaching.
Regarding Islam we find a different problem. While most Muslims are for peace, there seems to be a strain in the Koran and Hadith that may allow violence in matters of religion. Some say that Muhammad’s word of peace (there shall be no coercion in religion) came when he and his followers were weak in numbers and thus vulnerable. But when his armies were victorious and more powerful he spoke of smiting unbelievers who would not convert to Islam or accept the status of dhimmis. There is one example of the Prophet ordering an adulterous woman to be stoned to death, in contrast to the example of Jesus, who saved the life of a condemned adulteress with the words, “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”
Question 1. In our times, thousands of Muslim leaders call the USA (and the West in general) the Great Satan. Why would they say that of us who have spread freedom around the world and have sent billions in aid even to Islamic countries?
Question 2. And these same clerics justify mayhem and killing of their enemies, condoning lying and murder in the conflict with their enemies. Is there anything in the Koran to support such tactics? And even within Islam killing family members who desert the faith or disgrace the family name is justified by some Muslims. (See the following news article).
Question 3. What is the best answer to the question: does Islam by its texts and its founder’s example justify violence? (Note, in Islam there is no separation of religion and government. Islam advocates what is known technically as theocracy.
Silence over 'honor killing' stuns Islam critic
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/15/2008 4:00:00 AM
A critic of Islam says feminists in the U.S. are more concerned about fundamentalist Christians taking away their right to abort babies than they are the outrageous "honor killing" of an Islamic woman by her own father.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, recently wrote an article in Frontpage Magazine about the honor killing in Clayton County, Georgia. Police said Chaudhry Rashid, a Pakistani immigrant, claimed he strangled his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, in order to restore his family's honor. Rashid believed his daughter had sullied the family name by planning to divorce her husband to whom she had been given in an arranged marriage.
Spencer contends Americans must understand that this crime is the direct result of political correctness and a failure to confront the ugly realities of Islam. "We've let people into the country who believe it is justified for them to kill their daughters if they've sullied the honor of their family," he asserts. "And nobody is even facing the problem. Everybody is making excuses for it and saying it's not an Islamic problem, so the Islamic roots of it are unchallenged," argues Spencer.
He believes American liberals are more concerned about fundamentalist Christians. "Feminists seem to be more concerned about preserving their right to an abortion than about people who are doing things that are much more threatening to the equality of rights of women than anything the Christian fundamentalists are doing," Spencer adds.
Spencer states that no one will examine the question of unrestricted Islamic immigration in light of this problem.
posted by Jim Gustafson | 8:43 AM
6 Comments:
Sunday July , 08
HELP!
I cannot access blackboard at home [?] and no laptop at work -can someone phone me after 2pm at:
617 971 3293 with todays reading assignment. Thank You Ralph
BLOG: Hi sportsfans-
Since last sunday my Laptop was fried by a lightning strike, I've killed nearly 150 hornets, been stung on the head by 6 hornets and gotten a sun burn and haircut.
So my relative silence masks the fact that I've been gathering a few books I've read in the past on terrorism, found another two on Islalm and have been braketing and highlighting as I put the "nuts and bolts" of my paper together.
I will weigh in on the following question: What is the best answer to the question: does Islam by its texts and its founder’s example justify violence? (Note, in Islam there is no separation of religion and government. Islam advocates what is known technically as theocracy.
first, we cannot have any analysis or discussion of Islalm as a worldview without loking at the geo-political reality of terrorism. although not the sole patten of Islalm - as a worlview it has unique components.
Understanding that Islalm is unique, "Islalm is a political religion." [Netanyahau]. "Jesus died on the cross. Moses died before he was allowed to enter Jerusalum. Mohamad came to lead a state - he was a soverign." [Meese]
as such they have always seen two enimies - one from within with whom they advocate violence for religious dissent [or ASSASINATION]for leaders whom do not govern according to Allah]. the other enemy was from without - the infidel world of the secularized and modern- exemplified by the west. Far more violence has been committed against the former.
What i have read and will support in my paer took me three weeks to decide upon - it nawwed at me and I went back and forth as to Islalm's status, validity as a worldview. I WILL contend that as a political religion insistant on theocracy and violence to impose the will of Allah that it is a fundamentaly flawed worldview.
Political correctness will cloud our judgment, "It's there belif..." won't do! textual evidence from the Koran permitting execution CAN NOT be ignored. Violence and molestation of innocents to promote THEOCRACY can not be dismissed.
However, I will assert that the doctrine of Islalm DOES NOT - even in the broadest perversions - order or condone terrorism. I will not fully support this conclusion here however, i will rely largly upon the work of Meese- a professor and prolific author on Islalm. As well as the conclusions of the Johnathan Institutes 1979 Jerusulum convention as presented in Terrorism: how the west can win." by Benjamin Natinyaheu.
Mohamed was a smart guy, hungry for wealth and politically astute he was influenced by the violence and retaliation of Bedouin tribal life and mad religion the umbrella that covered it all. Peace, ralph
Question 1.
Islam is the perhaps most theocentric of the major religions. We know Islam today not merely as a religious creed or a variant of man’s worship of the divine, but as the ideology of the seething nationalism of the Middle East. It is impossible in the case of Islam to separate religion from its political, social, and cultural aspects as may very well be done in Western societies. Koran says “no God but God” it determined that greatest sin in the Muslim code would be Idolatry or association with other object. On the contrary, most Western countries remain state and church separation. And provide religious freedom. Thus, from the Muslim point of view, providing religious freedom in western society is considered to be the Great Satan.
Question 2. There are number of verses in the Koran that do call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Among these verses, perhaps the most often cited is the infamous “Verse of the Sword”: “Kill idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for then at every lookout” (9:5). People that do not become Muslims are the bitterest of enemies, and it is against these remaining hostile forces that verse commands the Prophet to fight.
Question 3.
Justice is a basic principle of Islam since it has its roots in God himself. The absolute monotheism of Islam is preserved in the doctrine of the unity and sovereignty of God. This belief affects Muslims conceptions and institutions so that religion is viewed as integral to state, law, and society. Islam believe that the justice would be served in the after life through reward for the pious, and punishment for the non-Muslims. Every human being is accountable to God for his or her actions and intentions. However, the Koran provides plenty of context to permit doing violence for self defense. On the other hand, Koran allows punishment of wanton wrongdoers to the full extent of the injury done. If we believe that God is ultimately just, it is impossible for so much injustice to exist in the world without some accountability. Since the religion is based upon total submission to the will of God, it is very difficult do determine equal justice in Islam culture.
I think that the main reason that many Muslim leaders call us the Great Satan is that our culture has become so focused on sex and materialism that when we go and "help" other nations with their problems, the culture and influence we leave behind has a bad effect on the people there, changing traditions and making people think differently, which upsets some people. Part of this is that we have so much money that we don't know what to do with it all, and it makes us feel better than others who can't afford such a standard of living, and we act like they're backwards and not as good as us, which people also don't like. I'm sure some of them also feel like there's strings attached to our "gifts" of money when we help that way.
Technically, according to the Koran, everyone who will not convert to Islam or who majorly dishonors the family or religion should be killed. However, many Muslims don't follow the strict letter of this part of their law, and I think they're right to make an exception for something like this, especially since other parts of the Koran seem to push for peace (slightly contradictory, if you ask me).
From these things, I'd say that it could be argued pretty easily that Islam doctrine justifies violence. The Koran is pretty blatant about it, and Muhammed wasn't exactly a pacifist his whole life, so I think it wouldn't be too hard to convince somebody that Islam has plenty of room to allow for violence. Of course, based on many people's opinion of Islam (including many Muslims), it's not too hard to convince people that it IS a peaceful religion. In this case though, I think my first statement is the better of the two here.
Question 1, I do agree that when we go into another culture and spread our beliefs, it does create problems. We send aid to those who need it and get flack because everybody has an enemy or political agenda that the U.S. may or may not be in line with. I slo believe the U.S. in the past has gotten involved where it shouldn't have, mostly for money or political jockeying. These countries see that, and it clouds the picture. You can be a saint your whole life and as we have learned from different religions one mistake and your out. There are many other countries who have more sexual expression than the U.S., there are other countries that have legal drugs which are illegal here. The Great Satan to me is our focus on money over religion.
Question 2, There are several references that condone retaliation and or aggression towards maintaining the WQuran beliefs and traditions, all were mentioned above and in the book. Towards the first point, there only can be 1 number 1. There will always be fight for the top spot, and number 1 will always be scrutinized by all others.
Question 3, Does or has not all religions used violence? The word conquer shows up in every timeline. To me its important to take the things from the Quran or clerics that seem right in progress towards whatever human harmony is possible.
Although I have been strongly against Islam in all of the other discussions, I'd like to be on what I believe to be the wrong side of the fence this time, in order to attempt to understand the point of view of the militant Muslim
1) Islam leaders have called the USA the Great Satan because they are the most powerful nation in the world and are not the least bit modest about it. I'm sure that significant portions of countless other religions and nations share this belief, but Islam is the only religion whose religious doctrine backs up actions of violence against this nation that is so content with its grasp on the world that its presidential candidate makes campaign speeches in Europe.
2+3) Jesus clearly stated his beliefs, and believed that staying true to them and keeping them alive was worth dying for. Muslims believe this too. But whereas Christ died for Christians' sins, and followers need only to follow the bible to keep their religion strong, countless Muslims have gave up their lives, as well as lives of those that they love, in order to keep their beliefs alive in a world where religions such as Christianity strive to become more widely accepted.
Islam exists primarily in the middle east, which has historically been an area of conflict between nations and religions. An effective way of defending one's beliefs in such a world is by punishing through violence those whose beliefs conflict with yours.
I believe that modern Muslims view our capitalistic society as being our main focus, our "ultimate concern", as opposed to being devoted to God. We are viewed to value money more than God, or to focus more on wealth to the point that they see us as idolizing money as opposed to truly idolizing God. This "shirk" is seen as the greatest sin in the Muslim code. And as noted above, there are portions of the Koran that calls for violence against non-Muslims. There was another news item just recently, where a husband kept his wife captive in the basement for some slight against Islam. This type of behavior feels justified to them. Any theocracy runs the risk of oppression; when there is no separation of church and state, the religion becomes the power, and everyone must obey/follow/practice that religion in order to belong. I think this is what breeds fanaticism.
Post a Comment
<< Home