Muslim Jihad and Christianity

[Ken McRae]

The following is an e-mail from someone I work with. I'm not sure how true a picture it paints of Islam, but it seems fairly accurate from the little I know of it. I've often felt like Islam might play a key role in the battle of Armegeddon. Yes? No? Your thoughts would be appreciated!

Allah or Jesus? By Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?" There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith, or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven. The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven, or my Jesus, who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to go with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and promoters of this Diversification Training Seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry. I think everyone in the US and Canada should be required to read this, but with our liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized. However, I hope this will not stop you from passing it on others you know.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

[Father David Moser]

The following is an e-mail from someone I work with. I'm not sure how true a picture it paints of Islam, but it seems fairly accurate from the little I know of it. I've often felt like Islam might play a key role in the battle of Armegeddon. Yes? No? Your thoughts would be appreciated!

This little story is far from true - I read a "Chick" tract stuck on my windshield with essentially the same story and I have seen this particular tale on numerous websites through the past year. It's just not true - and probably couldn't happen. It paints Moslems as stupid people, and they aren't. They are just as convinced about the truth of their faith as you or I and there are centuries of tradition and learning to give substance to that belief.

As for the "Armageddon" thing - inasmuch as Moselms are part of the world and not likely to go away anytime soon, it is certain that they will be involved in and influenced by this "battle". I'm not so sure that there will be a "battle" in the sense of guns and bombs and war - the battle may well be less a war of physical/personal/property dominance than a war for the hearts and souls of the people of the world. Not only that - I think that "Armageddon" no matter what it is, will not be "obvious" - the devil isn't that stupid either. In fact there may well be many false "Armageddons" staged by the devil in order to deceive as many a possible. But all this is "theoretical" anyway - better we should just worry about working out our salvation here and now.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

I'm not sure how true a picture it paints of Islam, but it seems fairly accurate from the little I know of it.

Well, as I said, I know very little about the subject, and if the truth be known, I don't really care to become an expert on it either. But thank you both for your thoughts, as they're appreciated! As for this story being an "urban legend", who really knows? It seems to boil down to Rick Mathes' word against Greg Kearney's word. Mathes is Executive Director of the "Mission Gate Prison Ministry" and an eye-witness. Kearney, on the other hand, is a "news reporter" and not an eye-witness.

Now, speaking from a purely personal p-o-v, I generally view the news media as an unreliable source of information. It's more in the business of "dis-information", imo, than anything else. Rarely, if ever, does it present all the facts of any given story or event, but more often than not gives it a conscious slant, either to sanitize the truth, or slant public opinion, or to boost sales and profits. And it is known to fabricate not a few tall tales of its own! The fact that Kearney is a reporter, and (more importantly) not an actual eye-witness, automatically diminishes his credibility in my eyes. Having said that, let's take a little closer look, anyway, at the details of his "investigative report".

The weight of Mr. Kearney's case rests entirely on the account of one other eye-witness, who is left unidentified and nameless, but who is said to have been the "Volunteer Co-ordinator" of the event in question. It also appears that he never personally interviewed this other "eye-witness", but that he received the account second-hand, from "Tim Kniest," the "Public Information Officer for the Missouri Department of Corrections." And as the facility's 'P.R.' man, it is his job to act like a buffer, by filtering or sanitizing all information released to the public news media. Consequently, then, we have an eye-witness account that is filtered through not just one but two highly dubious channels!

In actuality, then, what we really have is a credible eye-witness account from Mr. Mathes, a Christian missionary, versus a highly sanitized, and thus incredible account from an unknown or unidentified second eye-witness. And since Kearney's case ultimately rests on the testimony of this "Volunteer Coordinator", it seems very strange that he does not do something to try and solidify or establish this person's credibility. That he does not, and that he fails to produce any other corroborating evidence, only weakens his case, in my opinion. Given these bare facts, I find myself inclined, from the very outset, to highly favouring the account given by Mr. Mathes!

Why the secrecy, btw? Is it a possibility that this secret "eye-witness" feared for his life? And that he asked to be left anonymous and unidentified, in the hope of avoiding acts of Islamic retribution against him and his family? Is'nt it reasonable for us to expect that this eye-witness' religious affiliation be made known, at the very least? But the subject is never broached. This is very strange to me.

The two accounts agree the Muslim was asked questions to which he remained silent, but disagree concerning the precise nature of those questions and how to interpret his silent refusal to answer them. It's interesting to observe, though, that the "Volunteer Coordinator" does not volunteer to tell us what those questions were about, precisely, if not about Jihad! If he heard the questions that were asked, as he claims, then why not tell us what they were about? That he does not is a strong proof to me that he's not speaking the truth. And while Mr. Kniest says the man "certainly did not 'hang his head in shame'," such an ambiguous statement, at best, only says that if he did hang his head, as alleged, it was not done so in shame or embarrassment; unless it was out of embarrassment over being ignorant or unable to answer these questions. But I find this later possibility as being highly unlikely! Surely this particular man was chosen to make the presentation, not because of his ignorance, but because of his knowledge!

And according to many reliable sources, all Muslim children, (whether militant extremists or not,) who regularly attend the Mosque, and Muslim schools, are thoroughly immersed in the Islamic concept of Jihad, insofar as they are immersed in the teaching of the Koran itself. To believe the man was too ignorant to answer the questions about Jihad is esentially to believe he never personally read the Koran, nor was ever present at the Mosque during public readings and expositions of the Koran concerning Jihad. And this case was never made. That is to say, his alleged ignorance was never proven, only assumed by the "Volunteer Coordinator".

Mathes says: "I questioned him (Imam) really to get a clear refutation of what is commonly thought of this Jihad nonsense. But apparently he wasn't educated enough to rebut my remarks or by his silence on this matter (I think) concurred with my implied conclusions." Personally, I see no solid reason for disbelieving that Mathes is telling the truth here; and while Mathes appears prepared to admit that maybe the man was really ignorant, I see no solid reason for believing that he was. The bare facts of the story seem to argue against such a conclusion, and in favour of Mathes' initial interpretation!!

1 - ROBERT SPENCER, a professing Catholic, is "the director of Jihad Watch, is a writer and researcher who has written six books, seven monographs, and well over a hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism." (http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/)

2 - The Story of M A Gabriel and his Indian Connection - The Former Professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt (http://www.arabicbible.com/testimonies/gabriel.htm)

3 - Walid Shoebat: Former Islamic Jihadist Turned Christian Missionary (http://www.shoebat.com/)

4 - QURAN QUOTES AGAINST INFIDELS (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html)

5 - All Out War (http://www.hinduunity.org/articles/islamexposed/alloutwar.html)

[Justin Frank]

This is one of the most important things I've ever read about islam and jihad:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012676.php#more

It was just posted today and relates to the current Iran situation. I hope everyone reads this.

Oh, and here are the author's credentials, and what he has to say for himself:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

[Alec Lowly]

This is one of the most important things I've ever read about islam and jihad:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012676.php#more

It was just posted today and relates to the current Iran situation. I hope everyone reads this.

Oh, and here are the author's credentials, and what he has to say for himself:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Frankly, what we're going through now reminds me of the early '30s, when enlightened opinion held that although the Nazis were indeed bad news, the good German people would come to their senses sooner rather than later and all would be well.

We know what happened.

I think that it's safer to take a very hard line on Islam and be proved wrong than to take a soft line on Islam and be proved wrong.

All we are asking for are two things, both very clear and very simple: 1) that Islamic nation-states publicly condemn the use of force as a legitimate method of waging jihad, and 2) that they take responsibility to suppress and eradicate the non-state organizations in their midst which advocate and employ force and violence to wage jihad.

That's it. That's all. Either the Islamic states will consent to do this, or they will refuse. If they refuse, either they support violent jihad or are too weak to face down those who do. Either way, we will know where we stand.

These two non-negotiable demands should be put on the table in all future discussions with Islamic governments. They should also play a role in determining the extent and duration of the presence of U.S. armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

We can always play kissy-kissy with these people at some later date, when our bad attitude has brought the Islamic states around. If it fails to, then iit isn't a bad attitude at all -- it's appropriate behavior and realpolitik.

Alec Lowly

[Ryan]

While, as mortals, we don't have the time to learn about everything, I feel that if we're going to form an opinion on something we should research it to some extent. Today I think it's especially important for people in "the West" to learn in depth about Islam and the middle-east, and not rely on laughable sources like the story posted at the top of this thread, or what's said on TV or in Time magazine.

Islam of course has some pretty shady elements to it. Jihad is one of them. A handy overview on the subject is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad but of course it's best to find in-depth, scholarly treatments of Islam.
Obviously it is wrong to say that "Islam is a peace-loving religion" when it advocates forcible conversion (or you can pay the jizya tax).

That said, just because there are some unsavory ideas/ history in Islam, doesn't mean we should automatically view Muslims or "the Muslim world" with suspicion. Every Muslim I ever met was in fact "peace-loving" and, rightly or wrongly, interpreted their religion this way. I suppose it can't be proven one way or the other, but it's plain to me that these people really believe this and are not trying to deceive the world about their schemes, which seems to be what the jihadwatch article implies.

[Kris]

While, as mortals, we don't have the time to learn about everything, I feel that if we're going to form an opinion on something we should research it to some extent. Today I think it's especially important for people in "the West" to learn in depth about Islam and the middle-east, and not rely on laughable sources like the story posted at the top of this thread, or what's said on TV or in Time magazine.


I couldn't agree more. So many people seem to go on some anti-Islamic jihad fueled by pure ignorance and hatred. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world; if one wants to deal with it, one has to first understand it. Fox News or Arutz Sheva are not ways to do that.



Islam of course has some pretty shady elements to it. Jihad is one of them. A handy overview on the subject is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad but of course it's best to find in-depth, scholarly treatments of Islam.
Obviously it is wrong to say that "Islam is a peace-loving religion" when it advocates forcible conversion (or you can pay the jizya tax).

That said, just because there are some unsavory ideas/ history in Islam, doesn't mean we should automatically view Muslims or "the Muslim world" with suspicion. Every Muslim I ever met was in fact "peace-loving" and, rightly or wrongly, interpreted their religion this way. I suppose it can't be proven one way or the other, but it's plain to me that these people really believe this and are not trying to deceive the world about their schemes, which seems to be what the jihadwatch article implies.

Again, I agree completely. The only negative experiences I've had with Muslims have been with secular ones (i.e. the ones who did not follow Islam).

Islam is a heresy, and should therefore be rejected by Christians the same way we should reject Judaism, Mormonism, the Watchtower, etc. But the idea that all Muslims are all part of some terrorist coalition is just hysterical nonsense.

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Kris/Ryan

What you both say is important, and we should beware of demonising the Islamic faith. Of course, as Christians, we are going to disagree on the most important issue - namely that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word; but that is not a signal to equate Muslims with the Nazis.

We might do well to remember that in the secular West there are many who look on Orthodox Christians with suspicion because of their fidelity to values which are not shared by secularists who dominate our society.

The contribution of Muslims to science, medicine and philosophy has been tremendous, and if our Faiths have clashed in the past, that has been because of sincerely held beliefs on both sides; Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians have not exactly been on picnics together in the past, so we might try removing the great beam from our own eye before concentrating on motes in the eyes of others.

The Taleban is no more typical of Islam than extreme Protestants are of Christianity; that is not to show disrespect to either part, just to state a truism - they are sui generis.

The way in which we have constructed the history of Islam has done a great deal of damage. To read some accounts oe would think the Ottomans nothing but bloodthirsty savages - which they clearly were not. Of course they discriminated against Christians, and at that time we would have returned the compliment had we been in a position so to do. But it is noteworthy that their Millet system allowed Orthodoxy to survive. Again, one could cite examples of Ottoman barbarity, but Muslims could hit back with similar accounts of our savagery.

The truth is that historically members of both Faiths have behaved in a way modern man finds reprehensible; that is why the contemporary fashion for apologising for past mistakes isn't very helpful in one sense - we could just issue blanket apology for the past being different - and then get over it.

The problem is that interpretations of the past are being used, not least by Islamic extremists, to propagate a version of history which is designed to stir up Muslim resentment. The reasons why some Muslims feel humiliated and persecuted vary from place to place, they are complex and multi-layered; but when Christians tar all Muslims with the same brush, they unwittingly help the extremists.

Setting down ultimata is rarely wise in international politics. It is true that the US can bring overwhelming force to bear, but the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is witness to the wisdom of Napoleon's comment that you can do everything with a bayonet except sit on it comfortably!

Most Muslims I know respect Christ as a great prophet, and their condemnation of the morals prevalent in the West strikes a chord with me, and other Christians. That does not mean we should not pray for their conversion, but it does mean that we should treat them, as we should all men, with respect.

Smiting Amalekites hip and thigh was not, I seem to recall, Our Lord's way (although he didn't have a lot of time for Temple capitalism!).

In Christ,

John

[Brian B.]

As Christians our first priority must be to live according to Christian principles, especially to live with a clear heart and a clear mind in Christ and the Spirit of Truth. We must always be vigilant not to spread lies, rumors, slanders, and gossip. We must, especially in this Internet age of anonymous communications, be ever vigilant that we don't break the commandment about bearing false witness. We must pray everyday to live in Truth, not the empty and malicious falsehoods spun by the Prince of Lies. This is a goal of all Christians. Beware the state of your own soul, lest you be ensnared! Pray for all the deceived in the world, and spread not deception oneself.

Lord have mercy.

[Antonios]

There is a fundamental problem when people begin to compare the Crusades or the Inquisition to Islamic Jihad.

The simple fact is that every person who participated in the Crusades or the Inquisition was going against the teachings of Jesus. These people would carry crosses, but they were not following Christ. Muslims, on the other hand, when they overthrow a government by force or behead an infidel, they are following both the teachings and example of their prophet Muhammad.

That being said, Brian hits the nail on the head on how we are to behave and react. Our greatest weapon is not the sword, but our prayers. Especially for our enemies and for those who are decieved.

[Ryan]

The simple fact is that every person who participated in the Crusades or the Inquisition was going against the teachings of Jesus. These people would carry crosses, but they were not following Christ. Muslims, on the other hand, when they overthrow a government by force or behead an infidel, they are following both the teachings and example of their prophet Muhammad.

Yes, but on the other hand there seem to be injunctions against the indiscriminate killing of women and children. Also, the "infidels" are supposed to be given the opportunity to learn about Islam and voluntarily convert, before they are forcibly converted or forced to pay the jizya tax. In this respect today's "Jihadists" are not good Muslims.

Another question- while we could plainly say the Crusaders and Inquisitors were not following Christ, what are we to make of certain passages from the Old Testament, such as the book of Joshua, where God commands his people to systematically massacre the people of Canaan?

[John Charmley]

Dear fellow posters,


Some excellent points here, especially Brian's one about how we ought to act as Christians.

Antonios is quite right on one of the differences between Crusades and Jihad, although Muslims could say that the Pope at Rome stirred up the Crusades, and so, however much we distance them from the teaching of Our Lord, they were authorised by the Pope; not sure how far that would take them, since the 1204 Crusade sacked Constantinople, so if the Roman Catholics are going to offer apologies for the Crusades, the Ecumenical Patriarch should be included! That, in a way, highlights the selective reading of history which is so often evident on this topic.

The other big difference ought to be noted: no modern Church preaches Crusade against the Muslims; it is unclear to me that Muslims could make the same claim on the Jihad, although perhaps they would say it is only their extremists who proclaim Jihad; but again, I am not sure that would be quite accurate.

I shall leave the theologically more learned to to deal with Ryan's pojnt about Joshua, adding only that I thought that the New Testament of Our Lord superceded the Old on such matters; so I would be in agreement with Brian.

In Christ,

John

[Ryan]

I shall leave the theologically more learned to to deal with Ryan's pojnt about Joshua, adding only that I thought that the New Testament of Our Lord superceded the Old on such matters; so I would be in agreement with Brian.

Yes, you're probably right about that, but nevertheless there was a time when such a commandment was in place.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Another question- while we could plainly say the Crusaders and Inquisitors were not following Christ, what are we to make of certain passages from the Old Testament, such as the book of Joshua, where God commands his people to systematically massacre the people of Canaan?

The general Patristic position would be that it was a school of faithfulness- obviously a radical faithfulness like Abraham being led to offer his own son. But that world was only meant as a foreshadowing of this.

Now our faithfulness is more on the inner level, refraining from our passions & attachments. The point is that the level of faithfulness we are called to is just as or even more radical. Instead of sacrificing outwardly we are now called to sacrifice ourselves in emulation of Christ Who does so on the Cross.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

Dear Ryan,

If I could just add to what Father Raphael nicely stated, everything that happened as written in the Old Testament leads to the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Incarnate Word of God. All events can only begin to be understood looking through the lens of Jesus Christ. As the Incarnate God who came into the world to save it and establish His everlasting Church of the new covenant, only through His teachings and commandments do such difficult to understand events of the Patriarchs, (such as the killing of the Egyption first born males, the command to slay those who had fallen into idolatry while Moses was atop Mt. Sinai, and the massacre of the people of Canaa- which may not appear worthy of a loving God) begin to be understood.

These events are a foreshadowing of what true life is as explained by Christ. These events are to supplement and reinforce how we are to live in Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We are now called to see the true spiritual meaning behind these events. Within the life of the Church, we learn how we are to kill the first born thought of sin which enters our minds. We are commanded to slay the passions and 'pluck out the eye' that causes us offense and leads us to idoltary. We must massacre the forces of Satan and his demons who stray us from the path of righteousness.

The revelation of Jesus Christ fulfills all understanding if we open our hearts and let Him come and abide in us. As Christians, we have matured from the Israel of old, where they survived on manna from the sky, to spiritual children of God who partake in the life-giving mysteries of the Body and Blood of the Word of God. It is our charge now to 'be perfect just like your Father in Heaven who is perfect'.

[Ryan]

Dear Antonios- of course I'm not denying any of this! If I thought the Old Testament indicated an evil, bloodthirsty God I would have no interest in Christianity.

The only point I was attempting to make, in my muddled way, was vis-a-vis the Muslim idea of Jihad, pointing out that at one time God required a far more extreme struggle on the part of his followers, which was ostensibly justified in its time, even if it is no longer necessary for Christians today.

[Brian B.]

Dear in Christ Ryan,


Another question- while we could plainly say the Crusaders and Inquisitors were not following Christ, what are we to make of certain passages from the Old Testament, such as the book of Joshua, where God commands his people to systematically massacre the people of Canaan?

I am not a theologian but as someone who in the past also struggled with many of the more violent episodes of the OT (haven't we all?), perhaps I can help you see the forest for the trees?

First, we should always keep in mind when considering such episodes that everyone who died before the Incarnation had a second chance at redemption when Christ descended into Sheol to overcome Death. Furthermore, as harsh as it sounds sometimes it was better to die physically than be utterly and eternally lost in the spirit. Therefore it is incorrect for us to think in modern terms about the events of those times.

As I see it (and remember I am not a theologian), the grand narrative of the OT is a story about the cultivation of purity and holiness in a pre-Incarnational world utterly ruled by the impure and profane. I think it is difficult for us to imagine what it was like to be ruled by Death, a life of total desperation without hope - so much changed with the Incarnation. God chose to accomplish this generational project through Abraham and his descendents of Israel, and so one can see that much of the violence in the OT is geared towards establishing an island of potential purity in a sea of iniquity. When the ground had been properly prepared, when the context was set, only then could Mary God-bearer be born and live a life of purity worthy of bearing the Most Holy within her. In short, everything in the OT narrative is a preparation for and points to Mary and the Incarnate Lord, as Antonios so rightly pointed out.

I hope this helps, and that I have stated the case properly.

Sincerely in Christ,
Brian

[John Charmley]

Now our faithfulness is more on the inner level, refraining from our passions & attachments. The point is that the level of faithfulness we are called to is just as or even more radical. Instead of sacrificing outwardly we are now called to sacrifice ourselves in emulation of Christ Who does so on the Cross.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,

An excellent point, which prompted me to wonder whether one of the differences between us (Muslims and Christians) is that we now accept 'taking up our Cross' in this spiritual sense, but is that how Muslims see the Jihad?

Most Christians would not now see a 'crusade' as a physical taking up of arms, but as a call to spiritual action, in the way you highlight.

It is not clear to me that the same is true of most Muslims.

Much is made (and no doubt rightly) of the way in which Muslims sometimes get treated in 'the West', but less is heard of the way Christians are treated in Muslim countries. I have a sense that equality of treatment there is even less common than Muslims critics think it is in the west. Is that a misperception?

In Christ,

John

[Ryan]

Most Christians would not now see a 'crusade' as a physical taking up of arms, but as a call to spiritual action, in the way you highlight.

Many Muslims speak of the most important aspect of Jihad being the struggle against the "lower self," that is, an inward spiritual, ascetic struggle. This is most evident in Sufism.

[Antonios]

Many Muslims speak of the most important aspect of Jihad being the struggle against the "lower self," that is, an inward spiritual, ascetic struggle. This is most evident in Sufism.

While this may be a more spiritual (and beneficial) ascetic understanding of the term jihad, the Koran does not limit it it to that. In fact, in some areas of the Koran, the term is used implicitly toward violence towards the "people of the book" and the infidels, and in graphic language at that. Remember, these are supposedly the words of God.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the most powerful and influencial Muslim leaders use the term jihad in precisley the same language I just mentioned. Not to say, of course, they don't preach about inner spiritual struggle, but no one can deny they don't speak and preach of jihad towards others. These are the fruits the Lords spoke about.

[John Charmley]

Antonios/Ryan

It does seem to be the case that we hear more about those Muslims who take a literal view of Jihad than we do about the way of the Sufi.

Is there, however, a danger that we stigmatise all Muslims by taking such a view - or is that point of view itself simply a product of western sensitivities about matters of race and religion?:(

Either way, it seems that Our Lord's commands on this matter are quite clear - and very difficult for us to carry out - which is why we need to work at this. The New Testament does not require us to give and eye for an eye; we are commanded to forgive those who hate us.

In Christ

John

[Antonios]

Dear John,

The crux of the matter is that the teachings of the Koran are very much at odds with the Gospel. This is not an opinion but a fact if one studies both. We as Christians are to preach the Truth as revealed by Jesus Christ and the Truth will set us free; that is how the Gospel is preached. Islam takes it one step further by adding coercion and violence if need be to spread their message. This is not a contemporary perception but in fact the way Islam has been understood since its inception.

The problem that we Christians are faced with is how we react to this. You are absolutely correct in that one of the dangers we face is in stigmatizing all Muslims, and in fact, this is not the Christian way. It is our command to pray for our enemies and not judge others. We do not hate the sinners but the sin. Their jihad in fact necessitates our own 'jihad' (if I may be so bold) to counteract such passions of judgment, condemnation and bigotry. Lord have mercy on us all!

[John Charmley]

Dear Antonios,

What a thoughtful post.

What form do you see our 'jihad' taking?

You are surely right about the incompatibility between the Koran and the Bible, and as Christians we know where we should be looking for guidance. If Islam was content to treat Christians with the tolerance that western societies now try to practice towards it, then things would not be so bad. I wonder whether Copts in Egypt would recognise Muslim claims to be tolerant?

Factually, you are clearly correct in describing the different way the two faiths were spread. The Apostles coerced no one, and indeed were, all save one, martyred for their Lord; Muhammed and his followers took a rather different course, which may be why Islam still feels that the Jihad can have its literal meaning, perhaps?

We both agree on the need not to demonise Islam; but when there is the sort of reaction there has been to Pope Benedict's lecture, it is difficult to feel that a constructive dialogue with Islam gets one very far.

All the more reason, no doubt, to redouble our efforts?

In Christ

John

[Antonios]

Dear John,

I should have clarified my use of the term 'jihad' since it may take on many different connotations.

What I mean by our own 'jihad' is our unseen warfare against our passions, and in this instance, the passions of envy, malice, bigotry and pride. We must not allow people of other belief systems to cause us to fall into the hands of the evil one, because that is exactly what he desires. It is his modus operandi to have us fall in such a fashion. Instead, we should have Christ and His teachings in mind and bear our cross day in and day out. We should prove the truth of our faith by how we live our lives through faith, respect, and love for our fellow humans.

This is extremely difficult, of course, when planes filled with people are crashed into buildings filled with people. Or when trains filled with innocent commuters are blown up. These are the collective crosses our generation must bear. It is how we react to them which will demonstrate the Truth of our faith. Do we try to run from the Via Dolorosa, or do we stay on the straight and narrow path? Do we swallow the vinegar and gall or do we rather swallow our own pride and ask God to "forgive them for they know not what they do"? This is the way our Perfect Christ responded. And our charge is to "be perfect, like your Father in heaven Who is perfect".

In my fallen opinion, we are in, or fast approaching, the end times. How close we are to the Second Coming is anyone's guess. However, the signs are there: the scientific advancements and nuclear age which makes unparalleled, impersonal destruction with only a push of a button; the apostasy from basic Christian values; the empty cathedrals; the rise of secularism as the modern religion, with Europe the most clear example and victim of this decline. The rise of Islam (the world's fastest growing religion) and its own peculiar end-times scenario of the 12th imam which bears striking resemblance to the anti-Christ as revealed by St. John. I don't want to sound like some raving mad conspiracy theorist, but these are simply observations which cannot simply be cast aside and ignored.

This of course does not mean we should lose all hope and fear Armageddon. In fact, we have been assured of the victory of Christ, thus, we should confidently pray like the earliest Christians "Maranatha!", "Lord, come!" We should not fear evil, but rather have faith that the Truth will set us free. Likewise, we should not fear Islam, but rather confront it without being confrontational. We should question their beliefs without condeming it. We need to have serious dialogue with them. (The Pope has started this, though unfortunately with a controversial choice of quotes). The fruit of such dialogue will be that in the process they will learn about our own faith and eventually come face to face with who they think Jesus is. This is the seed of Truth we, as apostles of Christ, must plant in the hearts of our fellow humans. When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus "What is Truth?", he didn't realize that the Truth is not a 'what', but a 'who'. He didn't realize he was staring Truth right in the face. We should be that witness who stands next to the modern day 'Pilate' and say "He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life", while in our own hearts praying "Lord, I will follow you, even unto death".

[Antonios]

This is link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008973) is from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial about jihad...

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Hi all,

+irini nem ehmot,

Unfortunately I have not had the time to read through all the posts in this thread, so I apologise if I repeat anything that has already been said.

According to my study of Islam I would succintly posit the following key differences between (A) OT 'holy war' and (B) Islamic Jihad:

1) Verses concerning (A) are descriptive whilst verses concerning (B) are prescriptive. In other words, verses concerning (A) merely report historical events, not as precedents to be followed, but as mere descriptions of what has occured, whilst verses concerning (B), though particular historical circumstances may have given rise to their existence, are nonetheless open-blanket commands that attempt to instill in all faithful adherents a sense of moral obligation to uphold the examples set by the events in question.

2) Verses concerning (A) report events that are justified in their historical context. They report events that (i) constituted a response to provocation, harassment and evil, (ii) served a greater moral purpose, and (iii) did not occur until after the enemy nations were treated with long-suffering patience, mercy and compassion. The verses concerning (B) on the other hand, by virtue of their reporting events and commanding faithfulness to the example of those events contrary to principles (i), (ii) and (iii) stipulated above, cannot be said to be justified even if considered in their historical context.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[John Charmley]

Dear Athanasius,

I am in your debt again! You offer a most succinct definition of the key differences.

Our Lord preached a Gospel that was spread by the word. Certainly there have been times when Christians have not acted in the way they ought to have acted, but that was their fault, not that of the Gospel.

My reading of the Koran would support your definitions under B in your post. But where my ignorance kicks in is on the question of how Muslims interpret the call to Jihad. I know what the historical record suggests, which is there has been a good deal of very literal interpretation. This is certainly the line taken by modern Jihadists, but are they seen by other Muslims as fairly representing what their faith teaches?

From what I know of it, it seems to me that the Copts, who are, after all, as Egyptian as you can get, have a harder time of it in their own country than do Muslim immigrants in this country. No one denies there is discrimination, but the British government and British laws come down fairly heavily against those who practice it. No where is a second-class status enshrined officially - which is not, I think, the case in Muslim countries with regard to Christians.

In Christ


John

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear John,

+irini nem ehmot


Certainly there have been times when Christians have not acted in the way they ought to have acted, but that was their fault, not that of the Gospel.

Indeed; whilst Christian acts of violence directly challenge the example set by the moral paradigm of Christianity—Christ of the Gospels (see John 13:15), Islamic acts of violence seem to uphold the example set by the moral paradigm of Islam—Muhammed (see Surah 33:21).


I know what the historical record suggests, which is there has been a good deal of very literal interpretation. This is certainly the line taken by modern Jihadists, but are they seen by other Muslims as fairly representing what their faith teaches?

Certainly there are Muslims who propagate and adhere to a version and interpretation of Islam that I like to call “Islam lite” or “diet Islam”, I just don’t happen to think that such reflects the historical Islam that Muhammed intended to convey. My understanding of Islam is based upon consideration of the earliest and most authentic traditions of his life and person (e.g. Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), and the earliest and most prominent traditional scholars (e.g. Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi). Most Muslims who propagate a liberal version of Islam tend to disregard these sources; they’re essentially the Protestants of Islam, adhering to some variation of the Sola Scriptura principle.

Then you have diplomatic-type Muslims who cannot deny the fact that their traditional faith permits and even obliges them to commit certain morally repugnant acts, but nonetheless advocate a kind of cultural relativism whereby they encourage Muslims to adapt to fthe norms of foreign cultures and to hence abandon a rigid application of their belief if such application would present an unresolvable conflict with such norms. Take the following Egyptian Mufti for example, who whilst acknowledging the legitimacy of wife-beating, encourages Muslims not to exercise such a practice in societies where it is legally forbidden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lrX2hyRb3I&mode=related&search=

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[Ryan]

1) Verses concerning (A) are descriptive whilst verses concerning (B) are prescriptive. In other words, verses concerning (A) merely report historical events, not as precedents to be followed, but as mere descriptions of what has occured, whilst verses concerning (B), though particular historical circumstances may have given rise to their existence, are nonetheless open-blanket commands that attempt to instill in all faithful adherents a sense of moral obligation to uphold the examples set by the events in question.

I must disagree with point (A). The commands are clearly prescriptive. In the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are clearly ordered to make war against the various Canaanite nations, not because these peoples have wronged the Israelites, but because God deems their religious and moral practices wicked, and He is giving the Israelites the land. Some of the more distant nations are to be spared, and simply made into forced labor, but the nearer tribes are to be completely wiped out- Deuteronomy 20:16-18 : "But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inhereticance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them- the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites- just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God." Therefore, as we see in the book of Joshua, when these cities are taken, men, women, and children, even livestock, are put to the sword.

While the Israelite holy war was limited to Canaan, of course, Muslim Jihad extends to the entire world, but in jihad there are injunctions against killing women and children, unless they are involved in the fighting. I say this not to give the impression that the Muslim idea is superior, but that we cannot judge these questions by secular measures of humaneness and justice.


2) Verses concerning (A) report events that are justified in their historical context. They report events that (i) constituted a response to provocation, harassment and evil, (ii) served a greater moral purpose, and (iii) did not occur until after the enemy nations were treated with long-suffering patience, mercy and compassion.

The verses can only be justified by the fact that they were God's commands in a fallen world that had not yet been redeemed by Christ. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the Israelites were responding to provocation or that they expressed any kind of patience, mercy, or compassion. If injustice or provocation were the reason for the offensive, then at least the children would be spared.

[Antonios]

I must disagree with point (A). The commands are clearly prescriptive. In the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are clearly ordered to make war against the various Canaanite nations, not because these peoples have wronged the Israelites, but because God deems their religious and moral practices wicked, and He is giving the Israelites the land. Some of the more distant nations are to be spared, and simply made into forced labor, but the nearer tribes are to be completely wiped out- Deuteronomy 20:16-18 .

I agree with you Ryan. The Scriptures are quite clear in this regard that this was the command of God. Of course, these, as well as other instances in the OT are hard to comprehend as Christians...




The verses can only be justified by the fact that they were God's commands in a fallen world that had not yet been redeemed by Christ.

This is precisely how we must understand them. The economy of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, (Whose Incarnation, Death, and Ressurection - which has happened in time) allows us to see the greater moral teachings and spiritual discernment in those past events.

I hope others more learned in this forum could also comment on this issue. I myself have always had a difficult time reading such passages in the OT...

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Ryan,

+irini nem ehmot


I must disagree with point (A). The commands are clearly prescriptive. In the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are clearly ordered to make war against the various Canaanite nations..

I think you misunderstand what I mean by the distinction between “descriptive” and “prescriptive”. The fact that the Biblical command in question is exclusively intended for a specific people in history for the exclusive sake of their accomplishing a specific historical purpose, is what renders the command in question “descriptive”. The Qur’anic commands on the other hand are open-blanket commands with an intended applicability unrestrained by time or place.


not because these peoples have wronged the Israelites

The book of Deuteronomy explicitly refers to the wrongs committed by the Canaanites against the Israelites as an implicit justification to their acquisition of their land:

"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

In the book of 1 Samuel, Saul is commanded to deal with the ongoing problem of the Canaanites and again explicit reference is made to the wrongs of the Canaanites mentioned in Deuteronomy as justification of aggressive action against them:

"Samuel said to Saul, ‘I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:1-4)


but because God deems their religious and moral practices wicked

This was a complementary reason, yes, but a justified one at that. We’re talking about practices that are so blatantly morally repugnant (e.g. child sacrifice) that it can hardly be deemed the dubious subjective opinion imputed to an alleged authoritative higher being.


Some of the more distant nations are to be spared, and simply made into forced labor

Actually those who, contrary to the Canaanites, showed compassion to Israel are simply spared period. Continuing from the previous passage:

"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. Then he said to the Kenites, ‘Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.’ So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites." 1 Samuel 15:1-6


but in jihad there are injunctions against killing women and children, unless they are involved in the fighting.

In fact the injunctions in question go further and allow the killing of women and children who simply support or show favour towards a cause against Islam. In any event, women and children are not spared by virtue of a sense of mercy and compassion or a respect for the value of their human life, but rather they are spared as booty—slaves and sex objects.

Furthermore the inclusive language of the Qur’an would suggest a contradiction with these later injunctions in any event.

As to the justification behind the slaughter of the Canaanite children, I refer you to the following passage of Genesis:

"Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.’" Genesis 8:20-21

God explains to Abraham that he must wait until at least the fourth generation for the Amorites to reach the full measure of evil and sin:

"As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.’" Genesis 15:12-16

According to the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God, with each generation the sins and evils committed by the heathen nations successively accelerated, as did their open rebellion to the God of Israel who demonstrated His power to them on numerous occasions giving them the opportunity, as he did to the Pharoah, to humble themselves and find redemption in His ways. What logic is there in sparing those who, according to the divine wisdom have no hope for moral reformation and who in fact inhibit the moral progress of those who do have hope in that respect?

One day they're children; the next day they’re sacrificing their own children to the idols and resisting the blatant revelations of the True God and challenging the existence of His chosen people.

I'm sorry, but contrary to Islamic Jihad, I see nothing but divine wisdom behind the commands in question. Note that my reasoning here is not prejudiced, for even if we were to assume that the islamic god were the True God, the Qur'anic commandments in question lack the same wisdom necessary to uphold the credibility of that presumption in the first place.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[Ryan]

The book of Deuteronomy explicitly refers to the wrongs committed by the Canaanites against the Israelites as an implicit justification to their acquisition of their land

Yes, but is this the primary reason? Why is it that, not only are all humans killed, but even their livestock? What about the other Canaanite peoples who were not Amalekites?


This was a complementary reason, yes, but a justified one at that. We’re talking about practices that are so blatantly morally repugnant (e.g. child sacrifice) that it can hardly be deemed the dubious subjective opinion imputed to an alleged authoritative higher being.

Do you punish people for child sacrifice by killing them all, including their children? :( I don't believe child sacrifice is even mentioned. In fact, the ban on Jericho was itself performed like a religious sacrifice.
I would like to state here that I am not questioning the wisdom of God in the Old Testament... but I think we need to view his commands as coming from his wisdom and not beholden to ours.


Actually those who, contrary to the Canaanites, showed compassion to Israel are simply spared period. Continuing from the previous passage:

The book of Samuel occurs after Joshua, and clearly describes a very much changed geopolitical landscape, so does not apply in this case. Back to Deuteronomy: "When you draw near to a town or fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the popele in it shall serve you at forced labor." (20:10-12) God here is talking about the non-Canaanite cities.


In any event, women and children are not spared by virtue of a sense of mercy and compassion or a respect for the value of their human life, but rather they are spared as booty—slaves and sex objects.

Not entirely true, as the elderly were also spared. Point taken however regarding the convenient vagaries of the injunctions.


As to the justification behind the slaughter of the Canaanite children, I refer you to the following passage of Genesis

If this passage could be used to justify killing the Canaanite children, it could be used to justify killing any children.


What logic is there in sparing those who, according to the divine wisdom have no hope for moral reformation and who in fact inhibit the moral progress of those who do have hope in that respect?

There is plenty of logic. If the children are separated from the corrupting influences of their native society, it is possible for them to reform. Sometimes not even this is necessary. How many early Christians were the children of pagans?
This is what logic says. But you also mention "divine wisdom" which is on quite a different level, and which human logic cannot attain. I still believe that the OT holy war cannot be justified using human reason- rather, God's commands can only be understood by faith in his divine wisdom and the world's ultimate redemption in Christ.

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is what logic says. But you also mention "divine wisdom" which is on quite a different level, and which human logic cannot attain. I still believe that the OT holy war cannot be justified using human reason- rather, God's commands can only be understood by faith in his divine wisdom and the world's ultimate redemption in Christ.

Regardless, I have to go with Athanasius in that, while they may betroubling, God's commands to the Isrealites ARE fixed in history, to a very specific people, place, time, and circumstance. There is nothing here to indicate that such actions are appropriate to Christians today, whereas the teachings of Islam can clearly be seen as recommending such actions to the present and future generations. We have to go through some logical and semantic gymnastics to claim that this OT description of a past event can be interpreted as an NT prescription for future action. On the other hand, it takes some logical deconstruction and semantics to argue that "jihad" is PURELY an "internal" struggle. While this is certainly ONE proper explanation, it is rather clear that it is not the only "proper" explanation. It is simply MUCH easier to use the teachings of Mohammed as justification for violence than the teachings of our Lord.

[Ryan]

Regardless, I have to go with Athanasius in that, while they may betroubling, God's commands to the Isrealites ARE fixed in history, to a very specific people, place, time, and circumstance. There is nothing here to indicate that such actions are appropriate to Christians today, whereas the teachings of Islam can clearly be seen as recommending such actions to the present and future generations. We have to go through some logical and semantic gymnastics to claim that this OT description of a past event can be interpreted as an NT prescription for future action. On the other hand, it takes some logical deconstruction and semantics to argue that "jihad" is PURELY an "internal" struggle. While this is certainly ONE proper explanation, it is rather clear that it is not the only "proper" explanation. It is simply MUCH easier to use the teachings of Mohammed as justification for violence than the teachings of our Lord.

I agree. I don't think anyone here has suggested that Jihad is purely an internal struggle. The most that I have seen said about it is that the inner struggle is the most important aspect of Jihad.

As a side note, while it's true that the OT passages can't be interpreted as prescriptive in an NT context, unfortunately Zionists have used these passages to justify modern atrocities against Palestinians.

[Robert Hegwood]

What I have not understood about the war against the Canaanites by the Hebrews was the absence of any intercession for them. Abraham pleaded for mercy for Sodam and Gomorrah if only a few righteous could be found in them, but there is no record that anyone of the Hebrews asked God if there might be any way to show mercy? When God was ready to destroy Israel because of their sins, Moses said...Ok blot me out first then but spare them.

I wonder why there was no similar concern for the Canaanites by anyone. Was perhaps the command to wipe them out down to their cattle a failed test?

Of course it is the command to kill even the children that strikes us the hardest today as the most repugnant. The livestock thing actually makes a good deal of sense given the supposed moral degeneracy of the Canaanites (Brucilosus, I am fairly sure was originally a disease of human origin that "somehow" got transmited to cattle where it mutated a little to better fit the new host). While the spiritual application of what happened makes sense...it historical enactment still gives us pause, and I'm not sure what to make of it.

[John Charmley]

A few thoughts prompted by the foregoing.

Perhaps we should recall that the New Testament brought us a better way of observing God's law, which is why it is particularly sad when Christians depart from that path. It is also why we should be slow to condemn those who reject the fulness of the Resurrection message. God desires not the death of sinners, but that they should live and repent. At the end of all things we shall, all of us, be judged by the only True Judge - and how fortunate we all are that He will judge us, and not we ourselves.

Muslims engage with Christ in a way that denies the truth of the Risen Lord, and in this world there are many devout and good Muslims who, nonetheless, as such, reject the Truth as we see it. Why He who created us all has allowed this to happen is as much an ineffable mystery to us as is so much else that passes in this world. It is not only His peace that passeth our feeble understanding.

I think the general point being made is probably correct, in so far as Muslims have an excuse to actively pursue Jihad because their Koran can be read that way. We, as Christians, have no such excuse. He who made the world emptied Himself and became flesh for our sake. That was through no merit of our own, but because His love for us far exceeds anything we can comprehend. He whom the angels adore suffered death upon the Cross that each of us might live. That was the crusade that mattered - His victory over the Evil One.

In the shadow of the Cross each of us stands amazed at such love. As the old Anglican hymn has it:

When I survey the wondrous Cross
on which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain, I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride

We are called to convert others not by force of arms, but by the Holy Spirit; may we, all of us, be worthy of Him who died for us.

In Christ

John

[Jennifer]

Hi, all,

I have just recently read through this thread and am finding it very interesting. One comment in particular from awhile back caught my attention. It is the following:


The other big difference ought to be noted: no modern Church preaches Crusade against the Muslims; it is unclear to me that Muslims could make the same claim on the Jihad, although perhaps they would say it is only their extremists who proclaim Jihad; but again, I am not sure that would be quite accurate.

Although this claim is completely true, I think it is important to remember the context or lens through which many people in Muslim countries see people from the U.S.A and other western countries. My sister recently visited Morocco and got to talk with a few Christians who had lived there for a long time and with many Moroccan people. She learned that many of the Muslims there believed that all United States citizens were Christians. Although this concept may seem unreasonable to anyone who has lived in a secular society, I can see how it would make a lot of sense to a Muslim who lives in a country where the government is thoroughly Islamic. Many people in Muslim countries may even beleive that Western governments, espcially the USA, are as representative of Christianity as their governments are of Islam. In that case, I can see how the recent wars in Afganistan and Iraq could be interpreted to be Crusade-like.

It is scary to me to think that the differences between Muslim and Christian views on violence that are so apparent to us may be completely unapparent to Muslims who actually live in Islamic nations.

Jennifer

[John Charmley]

Hi, all,


Although this claim is completely true, I think it is important to remember the context or lens through which many people in Muslim countries see people from the U.S.A and other western countries. ... In that case, I can see how the recent wars in Afganistan and Iraq could be interpreted to be Crusade-like.

It is scary to me to think that the differences between Muslim and Christian views on violence that are so apparent to us may be completely unapparent to Muslims who actually live in Islamic nations.

Jennifer

Dear Jennifer,
You make a very telling point here, not least since the Muslim media in Muslim countries often chooses to focus on President Bush as a 'born again' Christian supported by the Religious Right and by Jewish neocons; we know these things are caricatures, but you are correct to remind us that many Muslims will have no reason to think so.

It is worryingly easy to portray what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a Christian crusade against Islam.

Having said that, there is clearly a good deal of cynical manipulation going on (and not just on the western side!). Recently Islamic governments in the Middle East have said that they would view UN intervention in Darfur as 'anti-Islamic' - meaning that stopping an Islamic genocide is anti-Islamic! On that view of things, I'd have to sign up to being anti-Islamic, although I would submit that those who are really anti-Islamic are those so-called Muslims who are disgracing the name of their religion by what is going on in Darfur.

God knows the sins committed in His name, but I would like to think that one of the few good consequences of the secularisation of the west is that at least our governments can no longer exploit that name. This would appear not to be the case with Islam - alas.


In Christ

John

[Ryan]

While the recent American wars are not "crusades" or openly anti-Muslim, I think there is some grounds for seeing it this way. I think it should be said first of all that the various Muslim countries can be vastly different in terms of culture and civic life.

Egypt and Turkey for instance are basically secular cultures, even when the politicians occasionally use Islam for their own purposes. There are plenty of well-informed people in these countries. So it's not simply that people in these countries are assuming everyone in the US is Christian because they live in majority Muslim countries. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans are nominally Christian and virtually every politician of any importance will be a Christian. Of course there is plenty of unfounded propaganda told about the US in the middle east, and plenty of people to believe it, but keep in mind how many Americans were convinced that Saddam supported Al-Qaeda, or even planned the 9/11 attacks himself.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars, in my opinion, were motivated by (clumsy) imperial ambitions. It doesn't help that in the aftermath of 9/11, it became OK in the US to assume a casual racism towards Arabs, which continues today. In the recent 9/11 commemorations, people often cited the national unity that emerged briefly after the events. I remember this unity as well- almost everyone around me, even people I normally considered rational and sober, became warmongers, eager to see their government bomb someone, anyone. From my perspective, living in Pennsylvania, a "moderate" state, I think it's pretty typical for Americans, even "liberals", to carry the basic assumption that the US ought to dominate or "lead" the world. While there's some disagreement on the specifics, I think most people are comfortable with the basic goals of US foreign policy.

[Kris]

While the recent American wars are not "crusades" or openly anti-Muslim, I think there is some grounds for seeing it this way. I think it should be said first of all that the various Muslim countries can be vastly different in terms of culture and civic life.

Egypt and Turkey for instance are basically secular cultures, even when the politicians occasionally use Islam for their own purposes. There are plenty of well-informed people in these countries. So it's not simply that people in these countries are assuming everyone in the US is Christian because they live in majority Muslim countries. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans are nominally Christian and virtually every politician of any importance will be a Christian.

Hi,

I agree completely. Moreover, I think that George Bush and the Republican are very conscious of this fact. While they are not so irresponsible as to actually use the word "Christian", they have continously played on words such as "good" vs. "evil", giving the conflict religious undertones throughout.

This is, of course, to gain the support of the "Christian" right; a section of the American population that made Bush's two election victories possible.

So can one really blame Muslims - Arabs in particular - for thinking of this as a Christian vs. Muslim war?

There's one image that stands out in my mind as I write this. One of American soldiers in Iraq praying in front of a giant Cross before going to battle. Its an image I have seen used by "Christians" in America who support the war and Muslims who are against it. They have different views of the war, but share a common idea: that it is a Christian one.

One must also take into account the fact that within Islam there is no real concept of denominations. The only major division is that of Sunni vs. Shi3, which is a political one (who should succeed Muhammad as leader of the Ummah) and not a theological one.

As such, in the minds of most Muslims, a Christian is a Christian; just as a Muslim is a Muslim.

So whilst I, as an Orthodox Christian, can say that the Protestant fundamentalism that George Bush and his supporters follow is by no means representative of Christianity - quite the contrary - a Muslim has no reason to see things this way.

I was speaking to an Algerian only a few days ago, who said "Why did the Americans use the atomic bomb on Japan, but not on Germany? Because the Germans were Christians!". Of course, he's wrong - but it's no doubt an opinion common among the Muhammadans; and one that won't go away as long as the "Christian" right is seen as being the biggest supporter of these acts of imperialist terrorism.

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Hi,

As such, in the minds of most Muslims, a Christian is a Christian; just as a Muslim is a Muslim.

So whilst I, as an Orthodox Christian, can say that the Protestant fundamentalism that George Bush and his supporters follow is by no means representative of Christianity - quite the contrary - a Muslim has no reason to see things this way.

I was speaking to an Algerian only a few days ago, who said "Why did the Americans use the atomic bomb on Japan, but not on Germany? Because the Germans were Christians!". Of course, he's wrong - but it's no doubt an opinion common among the Muhammadans; and one that won't go away as long as the "Christian" right is seen as being the biggest supporter of these acts of imperialist terrorism.

In XC,
Kris

Dear Kris,

A disturbing post, because you bring out so well how easy it must be for Muslims to see the war as 'Christianity vs Islam'.

Part of the problem is that whilst it was possible to see a connection between the horrors of 9/11 (the imperialists not being the only terrorists) and the decision to invade Afghanistan, that was not the case with Iraq.

There is also an element in the Government of some Islamic countries whose purposes it suits to portray the 'west' as 'crusaders'. I was a little shocked to see that Egypt and some other Islamic countries have said it would be imperialism if the UN intervened in Darfur; well, if they would help stop the genocide there, the UN would not have to intervene.

So, on both sides, there are those who use religion for their own secular purposes. It is unclear to me what Christians, or Muslims, who disagree with this, can do about it.

In Christ,

John

[Mina of Alexandria]

well , I did not read the posts, but the title ( jihad ) is very very interesting I'm egyptian ( I became Greek orthodox from a month ) . I as all copts were forced to study Quran and Hadith in the school.

Quran is the most book calls for hatred. and they have a dogma called ( Nasekh and Mansookh ) which means that when Mohammed received the quran from Allah before making his Sahaba gang , he said that people of the book ( Christians and Jews ) are very kind people and that they believe in allah too.

after making his gang, he destroyed Mekkah and killed quraish tribe , and won many battles like Badr , in Badr, new commandments came to him from allah to change the quraan good words towards christians and jews. he added new chapters like Tawbah and Anfal , this ( Nasakh) or cancelled the good verses about christians.

example :

Don't use force to get people into islam.=>changed to=> I'm ordered to kill moshrekeen( non-Muslims) any where. and I'm ordered to kill Christians ( Nasaara ) till they pay the Jeziah ( Tawbah 9:29).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslims over history recognized this commandment very well and killed Millions of christians from china's borders to Andalus( spain ). here in Egypt, I'm treated as 2nd degree citizen. and my religion is written in my ID .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

where is the problem?

the problem is in the whole west, in the time while middle east christians are being killed EVERY DAY , the westerners come on TV saying that Bin laden does not recognize islam well.

well, if some one wants to recognize muslims he can say that : People who understand and accept Jihad like Bin Laden are the Orthodox muslims. People who don't are Protestants.

Jihad is a ( Fard ) which is a religious duty. Mohammed fought and killed till the day of his death . he did not call for peace.

I had an english friend visited cairo from a month, we were talking about Jihad, but he studied islam well and knew that Jihad is the 'Orthodox' islam. I asked him a simple question : how many bombs must london receive to recognize that accepting islamics in her country will be a curse on her?

in egypt , 10 millions Coptic face jihad culture every day and night, in streets , schools , universities ... HOSPITALS ... and they call us ZIMMIES . after pope Benedict's speech , more than 4 orthodox churches in palestine were attacked , an orthodox church in baghdad and daily churches in egypt.

yesterday muslims entered st.George's coptic orthodox church in Mahalla ( town in cairo ) with a Horse.

in christ,
Mina

[John Charmley]

Dear Mina,

Thank you for reminding us of these things. Sometimes we get so consumed with guilt for things we in the west did in the past that we fail to see things in focus.

There is not a western country where Muslims are treated in the way you describe the Copts being treated; that is not to say that Muslims do not experience discrimination, they often do - but not active persecution in the way you describe. It would be true to say that some (often) self-selected Muslim 'spokesmen' describe the sort of security crack-down there has been in this country as 'persecution', but after what Mina has told us, we can put those claims in some perspective.

You are quite right, Mina, our governments are lamentably slow to complain about the treatment meted out to the Copts; the leader of the British Orthodox Church, Abba Seraphim, has protested about this. The Glastonbury Review also regularly carries reports of events in Egypt, as the following link shows:

http://www.britishorthodox.org/112d.php

So, thank you, Mina, for reminding us of these things.

In Christ

John

[Owen Jones]

Please, Judaism is not a heresy of anything. It is not a heresy of Christianity. That would be a logical fallacy. We do not reject Judaism. We understand Judaic prophesy in a fuller sense. Christ is our Exodus to the Promised Land. We should harbor no ill feeling whatsoever to Jews. We should be compassionate and understanding, and our witness should be one of love, not judgment. We need not concede any tenet of our faith and doctrine in so doing.

[John Charmley]

Please, Judaism is not a heresy of anything. It is not a heresy of Christianity. That would be a logical fallacy. We do not reject Judaism. We understand Judaic prophesy in a fuller sense. Christ is our Exodus to the Promised Land. We should harbor no ill feeling whatsoever to Jews. We should be compassionate and understanding, and our witness should be one of love, not judgment. We need not concede any tenet of our faith and doctrine in so doing.

Dear Mr. Jones,

I can't quite locate the post on this thread to which this is a response, but if there is one, then thank you for picking this up and responding to it in this way. You remind us of an important truth.

In Christ we have the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, but the Old Testament belongs to the Jews as well as to Christians, and we would do well to recall it.

The Jews have not, (except for the bit I obviously can't find) figured in this exchange thus far; they have suffered at the hands of the Crusaders and the Jihadis.

I fear that the Russian and Greek Orthodox, like other Christians, have much to be ashamed of in their treatment of Jews in the past; it would be good to think we have got beyond that. It is unclear to me that, for obvious reasons, the same could be said of Islam.

In Christ,

John

[Kris]

Please, Judaism is not a heresy of anything. It is not a heresy of Christianity. That would be a logical fallacy. We do not reject Judaism. We understand Judaic prophesy in a fuller sense. Christ is our Exodus to the Promised Land. We should harbor no ill feeling whatsoever to Jews. We should be compassionate and understanding, and our witness should be one of love, not judgment. We need not concede any tenet of our faith and doctrine in so doing.

Hi,

Whilst I understand what you're saying, and agree that we certainly should not harbor any ill feeling towards our Jewish brothers, I think the statement "Judaism is not a heresy" really depends on how you define the term.

What we normally call Judaism today - often termed 'Rabbinic' Judaism - varies significantly from what we, as Christians, believe to be the divinely inspired faith of the Old Testament Jews.

'Rabbinic' Judaism is centred around the Talmud, which came into being around the 2nd Century A.D. (certain parts are thought to have existed in oral form a few centuries earlier).

Christ speaks (unfavorably) about the many man-made traditions of the Pharisees (Rabbinic Judaism being a derivative of Pharisaism, rather than Sadduceism).

There are also a number of other factors which makes a clear distinction between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Rabbinic Judaism of today, such as interpretation of OT prophecies, etc.

As such, one could say that Rabbinic Judaism is a heresy; a departure from the pure religion of the Old Testament.

In XC,
Kris