Sunday, January 6, 2008
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
Is this the true face of Islam-or simply an aberration?
* There is a great video on the Internet from Dubai TV. It is a debate between an Arab woman on one hand and an Islamic cleric on the other. The conversation is in Arabic with English sub-titles. In the debate, the woman (whose name I don't know) harshly condemns Islam (she apparently does not subscribe to any religion.)for its hatred and violence. She makes the point that neither Christianity nor Judaism engages in this kind of barbaric behavior. The man accuses her of being a heretic. This video can be found on;
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul
One of the first things I did in the wake of 9-11 was to check out an English-language Koran from the library. The question had been growing about the true nature of Islam even before 9-11 since Islamic terrorism had already been active in the world for several decades. I should concede here that the Koran, like the Bible, can be open to different interpretations in many areas. Since then, we have continued to witness the War on Terror and inumerable acts of terror committed in the name of Islam. So the question remains- what is the true nature of Islam? Is it a peaceful religion that is being hijacked by fanatics? Or is Islam really a religion that preaches violence against those who refuse to accept its teachings?
When I read the Koran, I noted that much of its prose resembles that of the Bible. It preaches the love of God (Allah) and love towards other Muslims. It is the writings directed toward non-Muslims that I found troubling. Some passages that critics point out to prove a message of violence are disputed by Muslims as being open to other interpretations. Yet what struck me was that in virtually every Sura (chapter), indeed on countless pages, there are references to non-believers burning in Hell. Now I must point out here that, according to Christian doctrine, non-Christians will go to Hell as well. The difference here is the constant reinforcement of this doctrine in the Koran. Is it any wonder that so many Muslims don't respect other religions?
I have also read about the life of the Prophet Mohammed. It is not meant to be an insult in pointing out that Mohammed was a warrior-a military leader who spread Islam at the point of a sword. He personally brought about the death of thousands. Muslims simply cannot dispute that as historical fact.
Before I get to the obvious issue of terror and killing, I should also point out that my own religion (Christianity) has engaged in this practice in history. First, we have the Crusades. (I don't know which side was right and which side was wrong-nor do I much care.)Second, we had the Inquisition. There is no escaping this fact, and there is no defending it. There was also considerable corruption in the Church (Vatican) that led to a Reformation. What is important, however, is that in the past several centuries, Christianity (and Judaism) have not been involved in organized violent campaigns. Scandals? Of course. The biggest example today is the pedophile priest scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church. We have also seen instances of Christian-based cults, such as the James Jones Church and the Branch Davidians, both of whom engaged in mind-control and violence.
But it is undeniably Islam that, in recent decades, has witnessed countless acts of violence, intimidation, murder and outright terror-worldwide. It is not necessary to recount 9-11 and all the others. They are out there for all to see. The question is- how much of the Muslim world subscribes to this?
Before dealing with that question, it is useful to ask-how did this all explode upon the world in the late 20th Century? Was Islam merely aleep for several centuries? I am no expert on Islamic history, but it seems to me that the Muslim world has basically never experienced freedom or democracy. When certain parts of the Middle East became fabulously wealthy due to oil, the ruling classes managed to expropriate most of it for themselves. Then came the creation of Israel and the Palestinian issue. That has enabled the Arab rulers to blame Israel and the West for all the problems affecting their peoples. Add to that the growing exposure of Muslim societies to the Western world-and all its vices and temptations. Indeed, the growing fundamentalism of Muslim mosques and madrassahs have found a fertile field of resentment against this Western culture that they see as a threat to their own traditional culture.
So here, in the 21st century, we find ourselves threatened with the rise in worldwide Islamic fanaticism and terror. We see it not only in the Middle East, but in immigrant Muslim communities in the West (principly Europe). Violence and hate are being preached, plotted and carried out by Muslim clerics and their followers, almost everywhere that Muslims have immigrated to. Here in the US, we have congratulated ourselves on having a more educated and assimilated Muslim community than European countries who imported manual laborors without trying to assimilate them. The violence in France and the UK far overshadow our problems here in the US. Yet, it is undeniable that US Muslims are feeling increasingly disaffected in US society since 9-11. They feel that Americans hold them in suspicion. They hear and read about the attacks against Islam among Americans and Europeans. Most seem to be critical of our Middle East policy. Most seem stridently against Israel. On our college campuses, Muslim Student Unions organize demonstrations against Israel, often bringing in radical Imams to speak. Many of them preach a message of hate-not only against Israel, but against Jews and America as well. (I cite my own campus, University of California at Irvine as a prime example.)And occasionally, our law enforcement agencies have broken up terrorist plots to be carried out on our soil.
More to the point; are most Muslims involved in terror? Of course not. Do most Muslims sympathize with the Jihadists. I don't think so, but we really don't know how most Muslims feel. We watch the news on TV and every day, we see images of Muslim mobs in the streets of Pakistan or some other Muslim country burning flags, torching cars, fighting the police and calling for someone to be killed. What are we supposed to think? We hear about the car bombs, the suicide Palestinian bombers in Israel and what are we supposed to think? We hear about Muslim clerics preaching hatred and the worldwide imposition of Islam. What are we supposed to think? It is pointed out that there are some 2 billion Muslims in the world and that most are simply trying to go about their normal lives and live in peace with others around them. But what if one-half of 1% are ready to join the Jihad? That would be a lot of people we need to worry about.
It is clear that Islam is facing the greatest crisis in its history, at least since the Crusades. As yet, we don't know who will win control of the religion-the so-called peaceful moderates or the Jihadists. After all, in the final analysis, a religion is only what its believers and leaders say it is. Certainly, we should do all we can to assist and encourage the peaceful elements. People like the woman on Dubai TV, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali must be supported, encouraged and protected. Yet, I feel strongly that the moderates, if they are to prevail, will have to resort to violent means to defeat those who preach hatred and terror. (And I really don't much care.)
We also need many more voices like the names I listed above. Sadly, they seem to be few and far between. It is not enough to simply argue that most Muslims are non-violent and should not be stigmatized or discriminated against. I have argued in the past that Muslims should indeed defend their religion-not against non-Muslims or critics-but against those Muslims who are engaged in hatred and terror, thus destroying Islam's name in the eyes of the world.
But why are so many Muslims-otherwise decent people-unwilling to stand up, speak out and take action against the Jihadists? There are some possible answers.
First, many obviously are afraid to stand up and subject themselves and their families to violent retribution.
Some, I am sure, while not engaged in Jihad, probably sympathize with their goals and methods.
Some, while not agreeing with violence, don't want to engage in actions against other Muslims-on behalf of non-Muslim societies.
There is one other possible reason- and I am merely speculating here-after having read the Koran and the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Is it possible that many Muslims, while personally rejecting violence, feel that based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed, they simply cannot win a theological debate against the Jihadists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The meaning of any ayeh can only be known by comparing it to related ayat and to Moe's interpretation, reflected by his extra-Qur'anic speech and actions.
Muslim exegetes use the Qur'an & Hadith in performing that task. Their output is called Tafsir. In a recent blog post, ROPMA, at http://snooper.wordpress.com , I posted the titles of several topics from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. Each of them is linked to the topic so you can view the tafsir by clicking the titles. The titles alone are enough to give you a pretty good hint.
The ayat which declare perpetual war, 8:39 & 9:29, are confirmed by these ahadith:
Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, 9.92.388 and Abu Dawud 14.2635. You can search Google for the numbers.
As if that ain't enough, further confirmation is found in Fiqh. Reliance of the Traveler Book O, Chapter 9, Sections 8 & 9 are quite explicit. Al-Ghazali & Al-Shafi'i ruled that the Caliph or Imam must raid the Kuffar at least once in every year. Google those names, search within results for Snooper, you'll find where I have quoted them with links to source.
To answer the question: no, I don't think that it's a religion of peace. When I consider the history of world religions though, I don't think that Christianity is a religion of peace though either. I think that people can take any belief system and corrupt it to what they want it to be. Likewise, they can find the good in it and emphasize that. After all, one of my heroes, Malcolm X, was able to abandon his racist ways through Islam (mainstream Islam, that is - obviously not the Nation of Islam), so there's obviously something positive that can come out of it. Likewise, there are numerous Christians who have done good works through their faith.
Shoot, even atheism can be warped. Look at what Stalin did. Being an atheist solely means that you don't believe in any deities, but the Communists managed to add on so much unnecessary baggage that atheism has become almost synonymous with evil because of it.
It's the same thing with the Muslims of today and the Christians of the past. I don't blame the religion for the evil that they do, nor do I give it credit for the good that they do.
People are either peaceful or they aren't. They'll take what they want from the religion of their upbringing and get anything out of it that they want.
Lance,
As to Malcolm X, yes, he did change in his views, but unlike, MLK, Malcolm never contributed to integration. That is also part of his legacy.
Stalin- Most of all, the USSR did everything it could to remove religion from the people. They didn't outlaw it, but socially, it became very uncomfortable for a family to maintain their religion.
I think that in the modern world, all mainstream religions are conducting themselves in a peaceful manner-except one. What happened hundreds of years ago doesn't really concern me.
As for blaming a religion for what its members do-that depends. I don't blame a religion because one of its members robs a bank or steals something or kills for personal motives. But when so many of its members are killing hundreds of thousands of people in the name of that religion, well, what are we supposed to think?
At that point, I would hope that the religion would take the necessary "police" action. When it doesn't-again, what are we supposed to think?
Regarding Malcolm X, I should mention that I consider him a personal hero because he never stopped learning, and he was always willing to see things a different way. The fact that he was so entrenched in a hateful belief system (that made perfect sense to him at one time) and yet was able to make his way out of it, is what I find admirable. I don't find myself agreeing with everything he said though. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.
I understand your point, and I get that what happened with religions hundreds of years ago doesn't interest you. For myself though, if you're asking the question as to whether a religion is a religion of peace or not, then you have to look at the entire history of that religion. I mean, if all human life were to die off tomorrow, and an alien race would discover all of our records, they would make those sorts of decisions based not just on what happened from recent history. That's the way I look at it. Perhaps the question should be, "Has Islam become a religion of hatred and violence?"
Still, even with that, it doesn't sit right with me, as it ignores every other factor and focuses in on only one, which is the religion. It's just too simple of a question for such a complex issue.
The thing is, I don't really disagree with you. There needs to be some accounting on the part of the world's Muslims in response to what's going on. I saw a show once where a Muslim said that he didn't want to "apologize" for terrorism, because then he would feel as though he was taking responsibility for that. I can understand that point of view, but certain things need to be made clear. For instance, the whole debacle over the cartoon image of Muhammed? Those people need to know that sort of thing can happen in a free society. Certain Christians were right to point out the hypocrasy that Christianity can be criticized but Islam is like a sacred cow. The price of living in a free society is that you will sometimes be offended.
That's why I like my side of the theistic fence. We don't have any sacred cows. : )
Your point on Malcolm X is well taken. He did rise up to confront Elijah Muhammed at the cost of his life.
You are also correct that it is worthwhile to know the history of a religion to figure out what is happening today. But I think that is more relevant to Islam since they have had no Reformation. They still think in terms of the Crusades while Christians have "moved on". The reason I don't care about the Crusades is that I don't consider it relevant-and certainly not a reson to resent Islam. Likewise, why do you think the Shia and Sunnis are at each others throats? A dispute over who was the rightful heir to Mohammed hundreds of years ago!
As to sacred cows, we Christians have had to endure seeing Jesus in a jar of urine and celebrated as art by a major art museum. Likewise, Mary covered in elephant dung. We speak out and protest, but not violently. Contrast that to the Danish cartoons where people died and others are still in hiding. Consider Salmon Rushdie.
It is time for a little maturity here. One can live in the modern world and still observe one's religion and allow others to observe theirs-or none at all.
Agreed. The thing is, I find it interesting when I actually converse with "conservatives", I find myself agreeing for the most part and just having issues with some fine points, even though many of them would consider me a liberal.
"It is time for a little maturity here. One can live in the modern world and still observe one's religion and allow others to observe theirs-or none at all. "
Not Islam! Allah's commands are timeless; to be believed and carried out at all times, in all places. Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped "altogether and everywhere" [Qur'an 8:39; Abdullah Yusuf Ali] Muslims are commanded to fight Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subdued and pay extortion [9:29]. There is no getting around those commands, they are an immutable part of the Qur'an and Islamic law. Islam must be made dominant [9:33].
Islam was not, is not and never will be tolerant!
Could be, Ben. But like I said, we need to make it clear that we (at least in the US)will not submit to any forced conversion. If Muslims in the US want to live among us, they have to accept that. Hopefully, the Euros will come to the point where they say enough is enough and take the same position.
On the macro level, Western Europe has lost its soul. There is a tiny yet rapidly expanding resistance movement, but as yet it has no real potency, being far too small, and the dhimmis in the government far too powerful. If they do finally overcome, it will not be without great cost.
I agree with Ben. I think that the Europeans, mainly the Germans are not ready to face this problem at all because they have too many other issues. Since they have no religion to defend themselves, they don't see the danger in any takeover of another. Protestants and Catholics have enough infighting going on, in the political field especially, and the Germans are so damaged by their past, they have forgotten to stand up for anything, unless it's President Bush, who they all seem to hate.
Then there are their economical problems, that some blame on all the "Auslaender" who came here and get everything for free, and the problem with young criminals, who mostly come from moslem countries, and won't or can't be integrated. Endless story, no solution in sight.
Note*
Ingrid is in Germany. I asked her to comment on the situation there.
Post a Comment