cogito

34 responses so far ↓

• 1 José // Feb 7, 2006 at 9:23 am

  My Friend

  On this occasion I wholeheartedly agree no religion can claim to be one of peace is it responds with anger and violence.

  Whether that religion feature any deity, from the moment you find you must you must use anger and violence to make a point it no longer should be regarded as peaceful, now granted most readers must also understand that true Muslims would condemn such actions.

  I want to make a point of religious text in any religion. Religious text tends to be mostly misinterpreted and there must b caution used whenever one reads or quotes such text as to convey a message that is more broadly understood and not used to be interpreted to condemn or incite rage.

  From the bible to the Koran to any text, it is all in the presentation and read in a specific way all texts can be used either to promote peace or convey war. Just like the bible has many editions and many interpretations so does the Koran so be careful how one uses quotes from such texts. A good thing that i have shed many of my religious inclinations because from afar i can better see the realities that the zealots are blind to.

  Religion, all or most, speaks of a unity with a higher power and a peace with man and divinity and any flavor of religion that uses bloodshed as a tool forever stops being one whose goal is peace. Religion can be a unifying aspect or it can be a destructive aspect. Lest we forget that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Modern Day Muslim Extremists all shared a unifying idea, that each particular religion or ideal was right and that “might makes right”.

  I refuse to judge a religion based on a group of flawed zealots. We are all in essence human and all are prone to mistakes whether they be physical or spiritual. Because seriously folks if we are to judge Muslims in general terms then no religion is peaceful, from each we can dissect quotes that could be used to incite war and many people still do. Islam as a whole is peaceful, is it perfect? no, is any religion capable of making such a bold statement? i highly doubt it.

  I believe the cartoons may have offended certain people, did people have to die or speeches of war and death needed to be made?. no that was an overreaction to a minor event. Any religion that is not open to criticism is not one that seeks peace and mostly one that refuses to find common ground. A big reason why the Iraq war has been such a failure and continues to degrade U.S. foreign policy and slowly diminish U.S. importance is the fact the U.S. refuses to see that it is not fighting a political war but a religious war and if history serves as an example, religion tends to make men braver to shed blood in Iraq, the men who fight, they don’t fight for a party,for an ideal of political rights, no those men who shed blood whether wrong or right, fight for Allah and that’s a major motivator. But i digress, religion is a major motivator in how all people interact and most do seek peaceful ends. An example of fighting without bloodshed or violence is Gandhi. Gandhi was himself beaten, jailed and disrespected but he himself did not raise a hand or a sword, he saw that any situation can be resolved with peaceful interaction. I find that the world is missing that, the world needs more spirituality and less religious fervor. All religions need to relax and stop with this nonsense of “i’m right, you’re wrong”

  In the words of Lennon “Imagine all the people”

  Peace

• 2 futuregeek // Feb 7, 2006 at 11:52 am

  Jacob,

  As was the case with Brokeback mountain, I think you are looking at this from only one limited perspective. I will make two points.

  1. The Muslim world sees itself as under attack by the West. US support for Israel, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the subjugation of the Palestinian people (whether strategically justified or not, it is still brutal), the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan - all have served to inflame the Arabs against the West.

  The cartoons are blasphemy. How would you feel if Arabs made cartoons showing Jesus with a crown of feces instead of thorns? Let me remind you - the US invasion of Iraq, in G. W.’s own words, killed at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians - 10 times the WTC death toll.

  2. The bible is just as violent. Two pages:

  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/bible_quran.html

  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

  I think the difference is that most westerners are accustomed to solving these disputes by writing or discussing, and have too much to lose to go out rioting.

• 3 Jarrod // Feb 7, 2006 at 3:09 pm

  Our current president, George W. Bush, stands in front of a news camera and makes the following statement…

  “There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don’t understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ‘em on.”

  Our current transgression in Iraq, as noted above, has resulted in over 30,000 innocent civilian lives lost. Just about every one of your Koran quotes above talk about “war” or “fighting.” Who’s currently waging war halfway across the world? Would you classify Christianity as a “peaceful” religion? What religion does George W. Bush “follow”?

• 4 Jacob // Feb 7, 2006 at 3:19 pm

  To Futuregeek: I have to disagree with both of your points.

  1. The Muslim world sees itself as under attack by the West. US support for Israel, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon… and so on…

  I only partially disagree with this. I think that our alliance with Israel is sometimes irrational. However, given what my entire article is about, the idea of “Islam being under attack by the West” is only appropriate. Muslims likely feel that way because that is largely the case. Given that many Eastern Muslims are violent, uncivilized people, I think it is safe to say their lifestyle is under attack by the civilized West. The behavior described by CNN and witnessed by the rest of the world with each passing terrorist attack is deserving of any criticism (and abolition) it receives.

  Also, the cartoons are not blasphemy. Muslims do not believe that Mohammed was deity; therefore, defaming him cannot be blasphemy by definition. That is an interesting difference to point out because even though Christian tenets and Islamic tenets disagree, yet the Koran claims that both Mohammed and Jesus Christ were prophets. Why would the same God propagate to simultaneous, conflicting messages? Not only that, but why would he command Muslims to “kill” and “subdue” Christians and Jews? I’ll give you a hint, it’s because Mohammed was a political leader, not a prophet.

  2. The bible is just as violent.

  As is often the case, this is a misunderstanding of the “Bible”, and more importantly, a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. The verses that are always cited in claiming that the Bible is violent or that Christians are “inconsistent” are passages from the Old Testament, a covenant that was specifically for the Jews and was fulfilled/abolished when Christ died (Colossians 2:14). The Christian system, as delivered by Christ and his apostles is one of peace and love. Jesus said that the entirety of the law could be summed up in “Love and serve God with all of your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” This is significantly different than both the Mosaic law (for the Jews) and the Koran. Thus, there is no comparison.

  Having nothing to lose does not justify rioting or violence. This type of behavior simply embodies the savage nature of the culture, fueled by Islam and the Koran.

• 5 Lonnie Bruner // Feb 7, 2006 at 5:34 pm

  Christopher Hitchens had a good quote the other day in Slate: “The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.”

• 6 future geek // Feb 7, 2006 at 6:37 pm

  As is often the case, this is a misunderstanding of the “Bible”, and more importantly, a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.

  Well, I would say that you have a deep misunderstanding of Islam. I’d wager that I, a white formerly protestant American with a religious studies minor, understand Christianity better than you understand Islam.

  I’m just asking you to take a broader view. When I say that we in the west don’t riot because we have more to lose, I’m pointing out that social and political factors have as much to do with this as the religion. Think about it.

  Read up on the positive side of Islam: Jihad, the pillars of Islam, etc. Study the darkside of Christianity (Christian Identity, the Inquisition, Dominionism and Reconstructionism).

  BTW, check that definition of blasphemy… it can refer to defaming a religion or a belief as well as defaming god.

• 7 Joe Camel // Feb 7, 2006 at 9:37 pm

  Well I think you’re wrong for a couple of reasons. I can easily point to verses from the Bible preaching violence against non-believers. So its no different than the Koran in that sense.

  You are wrong to say Muhammad is a proponent of violence. I can cite to several examples in which he showed mercy. So I will assume you ignore these, not out of ignorance, but bias. I don’t know which is worse.

  Anyway, pretty much, your post is just like the hundreds, if not thousands of post made by ignorant christians, who in their zealousness to pick up their faith and trash others, cause great harm to the world we live in.

• 8 Joe Camel // Feb 7, 2006 at 9:41 pm

  Also you show your blatant LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about Islam by claiming that the cartoons are not blasphemous. Islam specifically forbids the depiction of Mohammad as blasphemous. I suggest you go pick up a book before you start spouting your incorrect crap across the web.

  As for your claim that the OT is violent and the NT is not. Did the nature of God change? Can the nature of God change? That violent being in the OT, exist outside of time, he is the same now as he was then, so no it is just as violent.

  And not only that, when we look at the history of Christianity, we see a history plagued with violence, so obviously the religion doesn’t inspire peace in its followers.

• 9 Jacob Morse // Feb 7, 2006 at 10:48 pm

  I appreciate the dialogue that is taking place, and comments are certainly welcome. Let’s continue to discuss these important matters civilly; any comments with obscene language or ad hominem arguments will be deleted.

  To Futuregeek: Perhaps there are some things about Islam I do not fully understand. I am willing to concede that I don’t know all of the various interpretations of Muslim scripture (and I do realize there is a range of interpretations). That said, I did provide the references to all of those verses, and the context often speaks for itself.

  I am willing to view this issue as broadly as is necessary, but when it comes down to it, I oppose Islam. Why? It isn’t the deplorable behavior of many of its followers. It is the religion itself, delivered centuries after the last will and testament of Jesus Christ: the one, true gospel. Muslims claim to acknowledge Christ as a “prophet of God;” however, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, which Muslims deny.

  I have read up on the “positive” side of Islam. In fact, I spent a semester studying Averroës, the clearest thinking I’ve ever read from any Muslim.

  Here is a very important point about truth and goodness that cannot be misunderstood on this blog: Any system of thought can contain and/or promote goodness to the extent that it aligns with divinely revealed truth. Whether it is secular philosophy, Islam, Buddhism or nursery rhymes, if they assert something that is good or true, it is simply because it aligns with objective truth. This truth is no guessing game, it is provided to sincere seekers in the Bible, inspired by God in such a manner as to allow those who truly seek truth to find it, while those who wish to disbelieve to be convinced of a lie. This dichotomy is clearly seen each and every day in this society.

  That said, Islam does contain portions of goodness in the instances that it borrows from the goodness revealed by God in times past. Yet, Islam’s various inconsistencies and its advocation of evil make clear the fact that it is not from God.

  The same is true of non-truth, especially in human behavior. The Inquisition, Dominionism, the Crusades, etc. are all departures from the clear teachings of Christ and his apostles. Therefore, it is not Christianity. It is a political apostasy masquerading under the name. Muslims that kill are not departing from the Koran, they are following it.

  To Joe Camel: The New Testament and the Old Testament are two very distinct books written for two very different groups of people at two very distinct points in history. As you may know, the Mosaic law and the prophets (commonly referred to as the Old Testament) were intended specifically for the Jews. This law was grounded in physical ordinances to maintain a race of people that would eventually bring the Messiah into this world. Jewish prophecy itself indicates that when the Messiah arrived, the law of physical ordinances would be fulfilled and thus done away. It is with the death of Christ that this history of physical law (including military action) ceased for God’s people. Christians now learn from this record, but are not under it.

  Jesus ushered in a new age in which God’s people are a spiritual race, fighting a spiritual fight for hearts and minds. The distinction is quite clear in the scriptures, and Jesus indicates beyond doubt that violence is to be avoided at all costs (even unto one’s own death). Primitive Christians were murdered without a fight for their beliefs — primitive Muslims killed others for theirs. That is quite a difference. Mohammed may have shown mercy on occasion. I’m sure Hitler did as well. Bits of mercy amongst an ideology of violence and conquest are ultimately moot.

  You are correct, I am a Christian; however, I am far from ignorant. I am zealous for truth, and have sincere hope that others in this world will acknowledge it for their own sake. I don’t seek to “trash” anyone.

  Joe, you have shown no lack of knowledge on my part, but a lack of understanding on yours. I am well aware that Islam forbids the depiction of Mohammed, but who does Islamic law apply to? Are Danish newspapers subject to the Koran? Of course not. That’s the point of this article. Christians are criticized and demeaned by the “tolerant” when they stand up (peacefully) for their beliefs, yet the same individuals defend Islam in the face of violence and murder.

  As for your claim about the OT and NT: No, the nature of God did not change. His methods, however, did change as I explained above. The Old Testament chronicles the preservation of a physical race. The New Testament ushers in a new age, a spiritual race called to a higher plane. So no, Joe, you are wrong. I urge you to study.

  Thanks again for commenting, everyone. Please keep the thoughtful dialogue coming.

• 10 r.fuel // Feb 8, 2006 at 7:18 am

  I liked the post, Jacob. I was thinking something very similar the other day when I heard that a Muslim paper is now holding a contest for cartoons of the Holocaust. Way to stand up and stand out. Keep it up.

• 11 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 8:23 am

  If Jacob were wrong regarding the texts of Islam advocating violence, then why are there so many Muslim’s who believe exactly that, namely, to advocate violence. The Muslim’s own widespread violent practices show that Jacob’s understanding of the Koran is correct. To just what authority are the Muslim’s appealing who perpetrate these acts of violence? They appeal to the Koran to justify it. Now, who would understand the Koran better than they?

• 12 Joe camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 9:32 am

  Therefore, it is not Christianity. It is a political apostasy masquerading under the name. Muslims that kill are not departing from the Koran, they are following

  Ah well isn’t that cute. If the do something bad in the name of Christ, well thats just them using the religion. If they do something bad in the name of Islam, it must be the religion? Sorry, but that is flawed. I could just as easily argue that Osama is a political apostasy masquerading under the name. You see, thats why I don’t appreciate your comment. Its not based on an objective viewing, but a bias meant to prop one over the other, for no reason.

  Regardless on the OT and NT being seperate books, they are still about the same God. A god who’s nature does not change. The God of the OT is Jesus Christ of the NT. Therefore you can’t discount the violence in the OT and say oh, well its different now. God’s nature does not change. Furthermore, the Jews reject the messiah. Being God’s chosen people, they maintain the covenant is still in tact. So do I go by what a goyum thinks, or do I go by God’s chosen people’s assessment of the situation?

  Regardless, you said it wasn’t blasphemy, it is, to them. It doesn’t matter if a buddhist is worshiping a statue, you would still call it idolatry right?

  Kevin, I can point to christian acts of violence in the name of Christ. Who better to understand what the Bible says than them?

  I am well aware that christianity claims to offer a higher plane. I am also aware that once it became widespread, we dove into the dark ages where knowledge and thought we stifled in the name of God. So no, I don’t see a connection between and christianity claimed to offer and what it actually brought.

  Your point is further flawed. Of course Mohammad fought for his religion. He was trying to form an empire. He was a political leader as well as a spiritual one. But to judge violence back then, when people had colloseums and slaves, from hindsight is wrong. Mohammad’s people were comparatively compassionate in comparison what was going on around them IN THAT TIME. He was a leader. Jesus on the other hand came to rise at a time when the Jews were under oppression by the ROmans. Different circumstances. But when we see the results, both religion morphed into a belief that justified and encouraged violence, intolerance, and ignorance.

• 13 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 10:59 am

  But when we see the results, both religion morphed into a belief that justified and encouraged violence, intolerance, and ignorance. But who “morphed” them? The difference lies in the fact that the teachings of Christ are peaceful and only after much corruption was Christianity morhped into advocation of violence.

  Islam, on the other hand, doesn’t have to corrupt Muhommad’s original message to advocate violence, because he directly and personally advocated it and he did so in many different contexts and circumstances. All they need do is cite what Muhommad actually wrote.

  Jesus nowhere ever advocates violence in any form. If he did, then show us the passage where he did.

• 14 Joe Camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 11:06 am

  Well no, you are wrong. For one, I don’t think you know what Muhammad actually wrote. Second of all, after Muhhammad die, Islam went on to become the leading empire in the world. So it would be wrong to say that as soon as Islam came, muslims morphed it into something violent and incivilized. They morphed it into a religion of an empire that inspired learning and knowledge, that brought stability to the world that the Christian empire could not bring. Only recently, with the collapse of the Ottoman empire following WW2 do we get the Islam of today.

  Once again, your bias distracts you from the facts of the situation and the history of both religions.

  Futhermore, you know very little of what Jesus did or did not advocate, as most of the texts of the Gospel were written decades after his death by third and fourth hand sources. But the fact is that the Christian scriptures inspired people or were at least used by people for violent acts in the same way the Koran is. So the logical conclusion would be its not the religion, its human nature that drives us. And thats the point. We aren’t muslims and christians in the world. We are people, the same, no better, no worse. So lets quit trying to pretend that either side is just, because neither history, not current events support that.

• 15 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 11:18 am

  But when we see the results, both religion morphed into a belief that justified and encouraged violence, intolerance, and ignorance. Christianity morphed because it was corrupted. Jesus nowhere advocated violence in any form. If he did, then show us the passage where he did.

  Islam didn’t morph. Muhammad advocated violence at the outset and that is exactly what many of his adherents believe today.

• 16 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 11:22 am

  Well no, you are wrong. For one, I don’t think you know what Muhammad actually wrote. I do. I’ve read the documents. Jacob quoted from them above. Did not Muhammad write the Koran?

  Jesus never advocated violence. Please give us the evidence that proves he did.

• 17 Joe Camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 11:46 am

  You act as if he advocated kicking puppies. Not all those Surrahs that’s Jacob posted advocated violence. They call unbelievers rejected, despised ect. I can find similar passages in the bible.

  Of course you can find Muhammad advocating violence. But he was raised in a differenet environment than Jesus. He was raised in an environments of individual tribes riving for power and he was trying to consolidate power into an empire. He isn’t advocating indiscriminate killing. He advocates violence in some aspects, peace in others. Are you saying that all forms of violence should be rejected? I think not.

  The fact still remains, in their zealous defense of faith, followers of both Islam and Christianity can turn the religions message of peace into something else. Islam’s core message is not, kill everyone in the name of Allah, its much more complex than that.

• 18 Future Geek // Feb 8, 2006 at 12:18 pm

  I responded to this a little more at http://futuregeek.blogspot.com

• 19 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 2:35 pm

  Of course you can find Muhammad advocating violence. But he was raised in a differenet environment than Jesus. He was raised in an environments of individual tribes riving for power and he was trying to consolidate power into an empire.

  Uh, actually, that’s exactly the environment that Jesus was raised in. Have you ever studied Jewish history? Read Josephus sometime. And yet, even with all of the violence around Jesus, he advocated peace. Jesus never advocated physical violence to any person at any time. Muhommad did. And that’s the difference between the two.

• 20 Joe Camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 4:59 pm

  Yeah I was talking about the environment Muhammad grew up in. Please try to keep up.

  And so what, Jesus didn’t have a reason to advocate violence, as I said he grew up in a different environment than that of Muhammad. And as I said earlier, its not as if he is advocating kicking puppies or indiscriminate violence, as you try to make it seem. It just the same amount as can be found in the OT.

  The fact is both religions preach intolerance, which leads to violence, which leads to worse. And that can’t be denied.

• 21 Future Geek // Feb 8, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  Jacob,

  Does your update mean you are rethinking your position?

• 22 Joe Camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 10:10 pm

  As for Jesus environment. Jerusalem was under occupation by the Romans. They had been so for quite some time. They also had a long history prior to that, going back to the Babylonians and even further. The arabs on the other hand had no distinct identity prior to Muhammad. They were part of the Ancient Persian Empire, the Parthians, and the Sassanids. But they were never in control or power in these states. They were isolated tribes. They didn’t have a developed heirachy, or central authority. This is quite contrary to the established Jewish Priesthood and the Monarchy. This is why the Muslims don’t recongnize the period before Islam as any sort of notable time.

• 23 Joe Camel // Feb 8, 2006 at 10:21 pm

  I see in your update Jacon you managed to show a tad more ignorance on the in’s and out’s of Islam. While the Qu’ran does not specifically forbids depiction of the prophet, they do of Allah and looks negatively upon depictions of the prophet.

  AH HA! You say. GOTCHA!

  No, Not quite my exuberant friend. Because the teachings of the Muslim faith do not stop at the Qu’ran. Muhammad was interesting in that he was a prophet who lived for several years, having an ongoing relation with God and setting and example. The collection of how Muhammad lived, what he said and what he approved of are known as the Hadiths. In these depictions of the Prophet are specifically forbidden. And these are as sacred to many Muslims as the Qu’ran.

  You can thank me for this new found knowledge another time.

• 24 Kevin Cauley // Feb 8, 2006 at 10:23 pm

  Yeah I was talking about the environment Muhammad grew up in. Please try to keep up.
  I was keeping up. I was making the argument that Jesus’ environment was not all that dissimilar to Muhammad’s.

  And so what, Jesus didn’t have a reason to advocate violence, as I said he grew up in a different environment than that of Muhammad. And as I said earlier, its not as if he is advocating kicking puppies or indiscriminate violence, as you try to make it seem. It just the same amount as can be found in the OT.

  Jesus did, in fact, grow up in a violent environment (Romans soldier’s weren’t exactly puppy kickers). While the Roman empire was present, the history of the Jewish people in that time is one of violence. As I said, read Josephus sometime if you dare learn the historical truth. I agree that it wasn’t the EXACT SAME environment as Muhammad, but you act as if Jesus grew up in the United States or something; he didn’t. Jesus’ environment was FAR from the peace that we enjoy here. And were there factions struggling for power in Jesus time? No doubt. There were the Herodeans, the Zealots, Pharisees, Saducees, Romans, Samaritans, and many others. And they all hated each other and they all tried to kill each other. If anything, the situation in Jesus’ time was more violent than that of Muhammad’s time. Yet, Jesus NEVER advocated violence. He always advocated peace. You guys still haven’t given one scripture where Jesus advocated violence and you’re not going to find it because it isn’t there.

• 25 Joe Camel // Feb 9, 2006 at 6:57 am

  Its not soley violence. As I said, you are acting as if Muhammad preached indiscriminate violence. At that point, violence was necessary at times in order to maintain and expand your empire. It wasn’t just killing people, it had to be with certain rules, just as our wars today (IE no women and children harmed, they had to attack you or pose a threat, etc etc). You can’t equate the two environments. They were distinctly different. Jesus didn’t advocate violence because there was no need to unite the tribes, there was no need to try an establish a central authority, there was no need to create a distinct culture. The culture was already there, the tribes were already united and the central authority was already there. So no, I don’t act as if Jesus grew up in the US, I act as if he grew up in an established city with a history dating 1000 of years and a culture to match. Whereas Muhammad grew up in the exact opposite of an environment.

  It would be more appopriate to equate Muhammad times with that of early Jerusalem, after the Exodus. When the Israelites returned to Cannaan, God allowed them, if not commanded them to wage war against them in order to reclaim their land.

  So you are comparing apple to oranges. Setting up a false analogy in order to prove your point. Now is it out of ignorance or bias, you tell me?

• 26 Kevin Cauley // Feb 9, 2006 at 7:07 am

  Jesus didn’t advocate violence because there was no need to unite the tribes, there was no need to try an establish a central authority, there was no need to create a distinct culture.

  In the times of Jesus, both culturally and politically, the tribes of Israel were divided. The only thing that kept them from annihilating each other was the threat that the Roman government would annihilate them all. The Jewish people were actually expecting a Messiah to come and to unite them against the Roman government and overthrow their oppressors. You say there was no need to do these things, but in the mind of the 1st century Jewish man, there WAS a need. That Jesus refrained from engaging in the violence of the day and pursued a path of peace speaks volumes. Such simply cannot be said of Muhammad.

  You really ought to read the historian Josephus to understand the widespread violence that was part of the culture in which Jesus lived. Again, if anything, it was MORE violent that the culture in which Muhammad found himself.

• 27 Jacob // Feb 9, 2006 at 7:20 am

  Thanks for all of the thoughtful comments - I encourage the continuation of this discussion.

  Some have asked if my update (with the link to the Wall Street Journal) indicated that I had changed my position. No, that is not the case. However, all of this discussion has made me think that I should rework my statement of my position in order to make myself more clear. Stay tuned for a new post concerning these matters.

• 28 Aaron // Feb 9, 2006 at 9:07 am

  There sure are a lot of facts being thrown around here I often wonder what God thinks about this glorious mess. And while I dont claim to be his press secretary, I would gather that he’s not all that elated.

  I’m no scholar on the subject of Islam, but it apperars to me that when Islam finds itself in the minority exalts the virtues of tolerance and acceptance. And when its the majority shareholder, the destruction of opposition by any means necessary becomes the battle cry. It’s not a small wonder that the vast majority of Human Rights offenders, according to Amnesty, Int., are Islamic nations; that routinely at least half of the worlds top 10 worst dictators are leaders of orthodox Islamic states.

  On the whole, the track records of both political Islam and Christianity have fared poorly concerning the treatment of one’s neighbor. Religiously speaking, show me the Puritan strain of Islam and I’ll show you the ‘let’s have their head on a stake’ strain of modern day Christianity. “But, each side has their extremist entities,” you say. Granted, but if in fact that majority of Islam holds to this ‘peaceful’ paradigm of living that some espouse, then why have they remained so silent and allowed this vocal ‘minority’ to hijack [no pun intended] their nonviolent religion.

  Furthermore, show me the sound Christian leaders who behead Muslims on videotape for merely residing in their country (and keep in mind that there are more countries that number Christians in the majority than the United States, esp. Latin America, Africa, Europe). Sure Pat Robertson has made a few extremely careless and ridiculous remarks, that coincedentally the entire Christian community has regarded as such. But I haven’t seen any torturings or beatings lately on the 700 Club.

  My final remarks in an effort to clear up this discussion: Christians differentiate in extreme measures the roles of the Church and of the government. The majority of orthodox Christians understand that the implementation of God’s rule on earth, the futhering of Christianity, etc., does not occur through the overthrow of earthly governments. Furthermore, the United States (though many Christians vehemently disapprove), has gone to great lengths in recent years to separate the government from religious (particularly Christian) groups.

  Islam has done no such thing. In fact, they see no differentiation between their ‘church’ and state. It is a single entity.

  So, as far Christians go, we will see no furthering of God’s kingdom by pitting visible Christianity against Islam. Furthering the Kingdom of God is the work of the Holy Spirit through the true followers of Christ, not necessarily the visble church. I think we would do better in arguing the political systems of the United States, Democracy, etc., over and against the dictatorship, tyrannical rule of the Muslim nations, rather than shouting ‘my religion is better than yours.’ Demonstrating love in the face of violence will reveal Christ quicker than our wits.

• 29 Joe Camel // Feb 9, 2006 at 9:16 am

  In the times of Jesus, both culturally and politically, the tribes of Israel were divided.

  But there was still a distinct Jewish identity. There was no distinct Arab identity prior to Islam. That is the point you are missing. Yes, they may of been at each others throat, but they had a history, going back to the exodus, the diaspora, the retaking of Canaan, Babylonian captivity. They had a Jewish identity bound in the Torah, an idea of where there people came from, what united them.

  You really ought to read the historian Josephus to understand the widespread violence that was part of the culture in which Jesus lived. Again, if anything, it was MORE violent that the culture in which Muhammad found himself.

  I read Joshephus, but sorry I don’t go by solely one authors perspective. I also disagree that the period was more violent. They were I would say equally violent, but in different manners. The violent nature of Arab society prior to 700 AD was based on the nomadic nature of the desert peoples. The scarcity of resources and battle over them. And the lack of a central heirarchy, be it from within or an outside power.

  You are once again misunderstanding my argument. Not that Muhammad’s environment was more violent and thus he was more violent. It was that the situation faced by Muhammad, that of a nomadic tribal leader with NO central heirarchy, NO state, NO history, NO unified concept of God, was quite different than that of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus who had a distinct identity based on 3000 years of history, recorded in the Torah. THe Jewish people had an Exodus to define who they were. They had the Kingdom of Solomon and David to give them something to aspire too. They had the established priesthood and they had their established temple. They were at a different stage of the development than that of the arabs. As such, it required a different approach.

  Once again, this has nothing to do with the inherent violent nature of the people, but what the situation demanded. Jesus’s message was quite similar to that of Isaih who also called for peace. The Jews had their period of warfare commanded by God, established a Kingdom and then had drifted from their covenant with God.

  This is completely disimilar to the Arabs, who while having still old primitive form of religion, had no religion that was distinctly theres. They borrowed a bit from the Persians, the Egyptians, the Hellenistic world. That’s why Muhammad’s message had such a profound impact on the Arab world. For the first time, God was speaking to them, giving a religion for them. By this time, Christianity was established but had a large influence on it from the established beliefs of the Greco-Roman world. The people of the Levant had their covenant. The Arabs now had a distinct identity to unite around.

  What you are doing is condemning muslims for using violence at a point in their development, where the Jews and the Christians were both allowed to use violence at similar stages of their development. Thats the blatant obvious bias of your entire post. A willingness to try and ignore the facts, throw objectivity to the wind, so that christianity can come out looking better than Islam.

  Am I saying that Islam and Christianity both deliver their message of peace, hope and God in the exact same way? No, where would the beauty be in that? The thing about having different religions is they appeal to different people, based on the situation they are in.

  When we step back and look at this objectively, we look at the history of christianity and Islam, we see an interesting connection. In that both religions have caused or inspired people to do bad. Perhaps this is because both religions preach an intolerance to other beliefs. A pre-emptive rejection to other ideas. I see it in your post. I see it in Jacob’s.

  This is a complex issue guys. These people aren’t protesting because Islam is violent. They aren’t protesting soley because they hate the west. Its combination of 1300 years worth of history, if not more. To point to it and say oh look, Islam is violent, well thats just silly, and more to the point, quite counter-productive.

  You want me to say it. YES ISLAM DOES PROMOTE VIOLENCE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. So does Christianity. You can argue well, the broader message of Christianity is this. Or well, when Christ came this happened. Those are all theological arguments. Just as that, you have Muslims arguing that the violence specified doesn’t justify acts taking place today. That Muhammad forbid terrorist attacks. There is not one single idea of a Muslim, just as there is not one individual idea of a Christian. So honestly, quit making stupid generalizations. What are you trying to argue, that Islam is a violent religion that only promotes violent and that Christianity is only a peaceful religion that only promotes peace? Well thats blatantly false.

  Read George Freeman’s Egypt, Greece and Rome. Try Bernard’s Lewis’s the Middle East. Perhaps even give Karen Armstrong book on the History of God. And if you have time sit down and read Jared Diamond’s Gun’s Germs and Steal. I have a few more suggestions after that. And then, my best suggestion, try to sit back and not look at this as Jacob the christian who lives in the US. Lets try and step back and take a look at the whole picture here, because when it comes down to it, what unites us outnumbers what divides us.

• 30 José // Feb 9, 2006 at 10:15 am

  Joe Camel states a point eloquently:

  “Lets try and step back and take a look at the whole picture here, because when it comes down to it, what unites us outnumbers what divides us.”

  I’d like to give my own views on some of the flaws on some of the world’s most popular and powerful religions.

  Christianity (again, many denominations from Protestant to Roman Catholic, I myself was raised the latter) Christian belief states Jesus IS the Messiah and the way it’s portrayed, Jesus is the main reason for the religion to exist. Jesus is considered the creator of the beliefs within Christianity. now if we really step back and look at the big picture, Jesus wasnt preaching to people “hey go out and create a new belief system based on me” no!, Jesus’s main argument was ways on how to become a better person, a better Jew. After all, Jesus was Jewish. My point here, no new religion was being preached, just better ways to live as a Jew.

  - Jewish belief states that no such man as Jesus could have existed, after all “how can we the Jewish people be expected or believed to actually kill a messiah?” Jewish belief can not fathom such a crime and yet how many assainations hasn’t the Jewish government led or planned. My point, get over it, so you killed the Messiah, after all, did not Jesus say “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”? so in that spirit finally admit a mistake, an atrocity if you want to say it was commited, live and learn. Oy vey!

  - Muslim faith states that Allah exists and that Mohammed is his Prophet, interesting how it just makes use of one person’s view. At least Christians have several viewpoints and Jews as well. Mohammed as a lone prophet to me sounds very political and very dangerous, like David Koresh, but I digress. My point here, one prophet’s viewpoint is troublesome and like so many religion’s before and after Islam I ask a “beware false prophets”? could it be ringing.

  Now as you can see, all religions have their flaws if you look hard enough. Most religions have positive messages if you look deep and some do “speak of a God that wants bloodshed and the defeat of all his enemies” again, if you interpret text in a certain way all this will be seen.

  I leave this post with a final point: Go in peace, love everyone as you want God to love you and finally for the faithful find comfort in which ever God you please whether this God be called Jaweh, Jehova, Allah or the ever mysterious “I Am who I Am”

  And to those with no God or gods: find peace in the particles of life.

• 31 Aaron // Feb 9, 2006 at 12:59 pm

  Yea, just pick your own Gods! Anyone will do, or particles even!

  “[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” - Collosians 1:15-20

  “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” - 2 Tim. 4:1-5

  but i’m probably just some wacko fundamentalist anyways…

• 32 Kevin Cauley // Feb 9, 2006 at 2:51 pm

  YES ISLAM DOES PROMOTE VIOLENCE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. So does Christianity. I categorically deny that true New Testament Christianity advocates violence under any circumstances. Consider the following teachings from Jesus.

  Matthew 5:38-39 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

  Matthew 5:43-48 ” Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

  Matthew 26:52 “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

  Christianity was originally a peaceful religion that commanded its adherents to be a peace with everyone. Even of those early Christians who were persecuted by the Jews and Romans were commanded not to fight back, but to patiently endure the sufferings that were afflicted on them. Now, after the original message of Christianity was perverted many used the religion to justify violence. But one can NEVER prove that the original message of Christianity contained even one hint of violence at all toward one’s fellow. You simply cannot make the same claim for Islam and therein lies the difference.

• 33 A Fundamental Misunderstanding at Cogito // Jun 3, 2006 at 6:09 pm

  [...] From the very first sentence, the comparison of “fundamentalist Christians” to the Taliban illuminates the misunderstanding of fundamentalism vs. radicalism. Consider the two concepts with me momentarily. Fundamental is defined as “of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary.” As a noun, we all know that it is “something that is an essential or necessary part of a system or object” (American Heritage Dictionary). Radical, on the other hand, is “departing markedly from the usual or customary” or “favoring fundamental changes.” These two words are used almost interchangeably in the mainstream media, yet in most senses, they are essentially opposites. If the words were used correctly, Slater’s introductory statement would make more sense - i.e. - fundamental Christians do follow someone who preaced pacifism and tolerance. On the other hand, radicals spout hate speech, making them not unlike fundamental muslims (that is, those that actually follow Mohammed’s fundamental doctrines). See how subtle (and dangerous) the confusion of these two terms can be? Slater continues… [...]

• 34 Tripoli: A Tradition of Tolerance? // Mar 30, 2007 at 4:02 pm

  [...] • Islam: Religion of Peace • Christianity & Government Share this article:These icons link to social bookmarking sites [...]

Leave a Comment