In a sense this is restating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious is worth restating. Like all big religions, Islam not only has multiple well-defined subdenominations, but also varies greatly from time to time, place to place, and ultimately person to person. All of us know this about the religions we're most familiar with, such as Christianity and Judaism.
Is Christianity "a religion of peace"? Well, that depends on which Christians you're talking about, where they live, when they live, and what their personal temperaments are. Theological inquiries and quotations from the sacred texts will tell you very little about it. (The text and broad tradition of the religion likely influence practitioners' behavior in some degrees, but the result is very far from determinate, as the variety of Christian thought and, more importantly, Christian action, tells us.) There is no Christianity, only Christianities practiced by particular Christians and groups of Christians. Likewise for other religions. This doesn't make their warlike subgroups any less warlike, but it should make us skeptical of generalities about billion-member (or even million-member or likely multi-thousand-member) religions. Max Boot, who knows a lot about international matters, points this out in much more detail. Here are the first few paragraphs:
Given the monstrous crimes perpetrated in the name of Allah, it is easy to despair about the future of the Muslim world. Nonstop news about bombings, beheadings and general bedlam will no doubt lead more and more Westerners to conclude that we are at war with an entire civilization.
In reality, Islam has no fixed identity. Like other religions, it is based on vague generalities whose application varies widely across time and place. A thousand years ago, the Muslim world was a center of learning while Europe was mired in the Dark Ages. Today, the positions are nearly reversed. But there are many different rooms in Dar al-Islam (literally, "house of submission"), and no two are alike.
He goes on to give examples from Malaysia and Qatar; I can't speak with confidence about those, except to say that I'm confident he knows much more about those matters than I do. But his broad point is entirely right.
To throw in a bit of ethnocentrism, I think a saving grace for Christianity is that it is quite hard to justify acts of violence on the text of the Bible - particularly because the New Testament replaces much contained in the OT. Granted, the history of Christianity is filled with religious wars and the like, but it is extremely hard to justify them on NT Biblical grounds.
Not so for Islam, and therein lies the problemm.
That's an interesting interpretation, but ultimately as a practiciner of the law you have to recognize it is incorrect. It's almost like saying (especially for these religions with written laws and texts regarding their interpretations). There is no Constitution, only interpretations of the constitution practiced by particular Americans, and groups of Americans. Or like saying there is no Law, only the practice of law by various lawyers and groups of lawyers. I sure hope that's not right.
We are fairly clear on our side that we will distinguish between the peaceful and the hell bent. It would be nice if the peaceful followers of Islam would try to give us credit for that.
I think the question that Mr. Boot overlooks, is how those vague generalities influence the individual sects of any one religion.
Especially for Christianity, Islam and Judaism. All claim to derive inspiration and authority from their respective texts, which don't change, even if the sects do. The question is how liberally the sects are willing to interpret their texts.
As Humble Law Student indicated, I suspect it's important to look at the claims in the text to understand what kinds of inspiration/authority those sects will make the focus of their worship.
Like a drift term in a random walk model, it can influence the direction in which a sect trends.
Eugene, how can a religion whose very name means 'submission' regard freedom, except as an occasion of sin?
See Prof. Volokh's earlier point about etymology vs. meaning.
...And yet it still happens every day, even today.
Which is one aspect of the larger point Eugene was making.
Uh huh... in the same vein I suppose the USA (and every other country) is lawless, because "and yet lawbreaking still happens every day, even today."
So you expect the peaceful to give credit to the warlike for killing only the warlike members of their group? Why should they be comfortable that our warlike element is so different from theirs?
Anyone think that the Sikhs are the most libertarian of religions?
Since these are the flavors of Islam that tend to make the headlines (to the all-but complete exclusion of other flavors), it's no surprise at all that many, if not most non-Muslim Westerners would take them at their word that they represent the true, core character of all of Islam. Since those headlines usually concern terrorism or other less-than-savory aspects of their beliefs, it's also no surprise that many non-Muslim Westerners would also conclude that this "true, core character of Islam" is incompatible with the Western way of life.
Fishbane,
Somehow I don't think the latter part of that statement stands up to scrutiny.
Perhaps citing examples would go a longer way than simple rhetorical statements.
The Path of Jihad
Christianity struggles to reconcile the universality of theology and the existing multitude of interpretations; I've come to think that the two aren't necessarily incompatible.
When I was young I was taught that "taking the Lord's name in vain" meant that I shouldn't say "God-damn." When I grew older, I was taught that it was a prohibition against essentially making God a co-signer to your contracts. The best meaning, I think, might be the simplest: Don't put words in God's mouth. And that, I think, is what a fallible human does when he insists that his interpretation of the revealed word of God is the only correct one. It isn't a question of tolerance, it is a question of humility.
This is backed up, I think, by a passage from Luke (12:51-59) during the Sermon on the Plain, where Jesus implores people to exercise individual conscience, and to allow others to do so: (sorry for the long quote)
I readily agree that in Christianity there is a fair amount of latitude in interpretation. But I think we should be able to agree that some interpretations are out of bounds. That some interpretations are out of bounds does allow us to consider the relative peaceability of the religions.
Regarding an interpretation as to say how much of the mosiac law was fulfilled (dietary, levitical, etc.) in Christ, and how much still remains is something that could definately get into long debate on interpretation. But the fact that some things are given wider latitude, doesn't mean that somethings are not fairly hemmed in.
I'm not entirely sure from the post if Eugene realizes that his statement explicitly rejects some core beliefs of both Christianity and Islam, which both make the unity of all believers in God a central part of their theology. If there is no Islam, only many "Islams", why go to Mecca? Why not create your own Islam and just take a pilgrimage to your local spa? Mecca is all about unity; the Christian sacraments such as mass and baptism are also all about the unity in the "communion of all believers."
For example, part of my beliefs as a Christian is that _I AM_ responsible and connected to such crimes as the Crusades, the Inquisition, Anti-Semitism, inadequate Christian responses to slavery and the Holocaust, etc. These crimes were not committed by other "Christianities" that don't involve me; they were committed in the name of my religion, and while I don't believe in self-flagellation or slavery reparations, I do feel that I have a serious responsibility to monitor the darker parts of Christian belief to make sure that my church and I don't repeat old mistakes. There definitely are tendencies in my religion which can lead to abuses, and constructing a good Christian life or theology requires taking those abuses seriously.
IMHO, no one will ever succeed in creating new, peaceful "Islams" separate from the old. But I think the chances are quite good that scholars and believers who take the unity of all Islam seriously will eventually take responsibility and defeat the jihadi extremists once and for all.
p.s. I just find this "no Christianity, only many Christianities" phrase really annoys me. But it's the academic-jargony sound of the phrase, not the theological content, which I find so annoying.
A cursory examination shows that probably more than ninety percent of the quotes listed are from the Old Testament.
One of the only ones I saw from the New Testament was this:
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
Hardly condoning slavery; reads more like telling a Christian slave that his calling is to abide by his faith no matter what his position.
Now, I'm not an expert on the Old Testament, but as I understand it most passages refer to specific tribes and sects that were only present in the past. Last I checked there weren't too many Hittites running around.
I think most would agree that in terms of continuing influence, there is a difference between declaring war against all unbelievers and declaring war against a specific tribe that no longer exists.
Excuse the misread.
No, I'm good.
::goes back to arguing with DK over what is a Democrat::
But (1) millions of Muslims are making choices about where their beliefs fit in. In addition, (2) there is a dangerous human characteristic to identify very strongly with a group and view it as in dire struggle with an enemy that is vilifying you.
These two facts together show why its crucial to be diplomatic about treatment of Islam in Western media. Granted, the embassy burners have made up their minds. And when they say, "Disgrace the Prophet and we'll kill you," that is a threat to which we must stand resolutely opposed.
But the non-committed Muslims trying to work out their salvation, so to speak, are not making a "threat" of the form: "Respect our religion or we'll become extremists." They are, however, suceptible to being manipulated by those who trying to radicalize them.
The real villians here, of course, are the governments and media in the Muslim world who vilify others to distract the population from their tyrany. But that does not mean that the West should respond to that by saying: "We should just say whatever we feel like because the extremists just want to destroy us anyway."
Certainly though, if one religion says that one route to an afterlife is to commit violence, and another says that to obtain an afterlife one must refrain from violence, all else equal, you'd probably see more violence in the former than the latter. No?
But to what scholarship are you referring? I'm thinking of the claim that Islam is incompatible with peace, which I've encountered on the Internet over and over and over. I've never heard of a scholarly expert in the field (an Arabist or a scholar of Islam in a religion department) making such a claim. I'd be interesting in seeing the research you're referring to.
Christianity was founded by Jesus and Paul, but turned into a major world religion by Constantine. In Islam, Paul, Jesus and Constantine are embodied in the same basic person, Muhammad. Protestant Christians defend the purity of their faith by condemning Constantine and embracing only Jesus/Paul. But does that distinction really make any sense? Is a religion better because it had a pure beginning, before it was corrupted by politics, as opposed to being political from the very beginning?
Also Taimyoboi, I'm not convinced that your position, that Islam proscribes violence while Christianity procribes non-violence, is accurate. I am not an expert on the Qu'ran, but from what I've read the basic requirements for the afterlife are extremely similar to Christianity. Certainly, the five pillars of Islam (belief, fasting, prayer, charity, the hajj) are perfectly consistant with Christianity. Isolated passages, taken out of context by non-believers, are not reliable to interpret Islamic belief. As SLS 1L pointed out, passages out of context can equally show the Bible to encourage violence.
If you were raised a Quaker, then I believe as part of your religious instruction you should have been taught about the two "covenants." The Old Testament was the first covenant which God gave to only the Jews. The New Testament is the new covenant which God gave to everyone - it also replaces the OT.
Jesus never advocates violence; on the contrary, he is bit too pacifist for my tastes. As far as I am aware, all of the verses that advocate violence are in the OT and therefore irrelevant as far as Christian doctrine is concerned. To use legal terminology, you could say the OT is persuasive, while the NT is mandatory authority. Instruction contained within the OT can help inform one's understanding of the NT, but where there is a religious conflict, the NT is controlling authority.
The verses within the Quran and Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) don't have the same old covenant/ new covenant distinction as far as I am aware. Although, some Muslims do make distinctions between their holy texts that are supposed to have come from before historical date (I forget exactly which, but I believe it is based on Mohammed's change from mere prophet to conqueror).
This is to Christianity's credit. Imagine deciding the fate of the family in which the kid curses his parents for making him gather firewood on the sabbath.
But the same latitude is never given to Muslims regarding the Quran. Many Westerners demand that each and every passage of the Quran applies today and forever.
I don't think the relevant question is how non-believers view a faith, but how believers do.
And in that respect, I think there is a fair argument to be made that the language in the Qu'ran is stronger than in the New Testament. The important point being not that
As an aside, I think there is an important distinction to be made between the Bible as a whole and the New Testament, which SLS 1L's page didn't do. His page contained passages predominantly from the Old Testament, which Christian's do not use as their primary source of authority.
Nevertheless, the Qu'ran does call Muslims to wage jihad against idolaters, and force Jews and Christians to either convert, or live with the penalty of an unbeliever's tax.
I think there are very few passages where Jesus ever said anything to such effect--the overriding theme, as far as I recall, was something to the effect of turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as yourself.
I agree. So why write anything else? You are obviously not a believer in Islam, so your view of the Qu'ran is of no relevance or meaning whatsoever. What arrogance to say that the "Qu'ran does call Muslims to wage jihad against idolators". You have no idea what passage you are even citing, much less what that passage means in context, much less what that means in terms of the overall structure of the Qu'ran.
But what is the word you use to describe a believer who cites those passages as justification for suicide bombings or flying into towers?
You can use the cover that this may or may not be true of all Muslims, but with hot spots in at least 9 countries, that starts to look like a pretty long list that I think warrants a more thorough explanation.
However, I agree with his thesis if his thesis is that we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Islamofascists. For a successful end to that war it would behoove us to coax as many Muslims as possible into the international marketplace. Liberty and security is a balancing act. I happen to think that President Bush is correct vis a vis the UAE ports deal but I also happen to think that he's on the losing end of that debate.
Christianity is a pacifist religion? How about the crusades? The thirty years war? The inquisition? There is quite a bit in the bible to support violence, as there is in the Quran.
Islam means submission not to other people, but to a deity. Is that not what Christianity or any religion professes? Putting the divine good above all else?
Taimyoboi) That's one interpretation of Christianity. One that was not very popular for much of European history. Religious freedom is a very new, and very secular, idea. And the tax that you mention was hardly a terrible injustice; at least in the Ottoman empire, it also involved not being included in the draft - Muslims did not have to pay, but they could get conscripted.
What justification did the Jews use in 1944 when they attacked British soldiers before the Nazis were even defeated? Is Judaism also inherently warlike too then? Suicide bombers have a political goal, and are simply using the only method they see to achieve it.
I have to second the motion that Eugene's post contradicts the Christian teaching that all genuine Christians are one in Christ. There's a metaphysical reality, as Paul sees it, to being in Christ, and some people are in Christ and others not. He speaks in places of being (spiritually speaking) in heaven with Christ, gathered around the throne of God. That's an all-or-nothing thing, and it's true of all people genuinely in Christ. There's one Christianity. Now this is not true of everyone who claims to be a Christian. He calls the Corinthians to examine themselves to see if they are really in the faith. He speaks of only those who persevere as ultimately gaining the prize at the end. Jesus speaks of those who call him "Lord, Lord" but whom he does not know. So the standard Christian take on this is that many have acted in Jesus' name without being Christians at all, though they take the name. Some who are genuinely Christians have not represented the one body of Christian believers that spiritually speaking is united with Christ.
I think Christians can accept all that, though, and still treat Eugene's language as merely sociological and the word 'Christian' as a much looser term than the NT authors would want of it. So what he says doesn't have to be denied. I think it's important to note how Christianity would view it, though.
The New Testament is to the Old Testament as the ________________ is to the Koran.
I don't believe that "Many Westerners demand that each and every passage of the Quran applies today and forever". To the contrary, I think most westerners would love to see a Quranic interpretation that repudiates the violent passages of the Quran. The problem is that non-Muslims don't have any standing to change the way Muslims interpret their religion and there doesn't seem to be any prominent Islamic movement that is reinterpreting the Quran in a manner to read out those violent parts.
Since some Muslims obviously are practicing the violent parts of their religion, if Muslims wish not to be associated with the violent sects, it's their duty to actively disassociate themselves.
BTW, Did anyone read the article? Was the author being sarcastic? Malaysia has vigilante squads roaming the streets punishing teenagers for sins, but it's OK because the government will arrest them? Newspapers were closed for publishing cartoons? Muslims have to obey Sharia, but non-Muslims are exempt? This is the Islamic world's leading edge of tolerance and human rights? Oh yeah, there's Qatar, but it's "further behind on the road to democracy" road relative to Malaysia. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly feel better now.
Um, no.
Not even close.
This is third grade theology, at best.
The NT is meaningless without the OT. If you don't believe me, ask Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.
The Jewish reaction to the terrorist groups attacking the British was universal (>99.9%) condemnation and revulsion. This is easily confirmed by research into the statements by every official and semi-official Jewish organization of the time. Furthermore, the Jewish community of the time expended enormous effort in attempting to arrest said terrorists or at least harass them into ineffectuallity, including passing information to the British. The total number of terrorists at any one time was trivial, even in relative terms.
Institutionalized terrorism never existed.
There are a number of other statements in your post that I don't think bear historical scrutiny (principally the crusades and the 30 Years War), but let me assess this one.
This is actually quite contrary to history, as least as far as the United States is concerned. The idea that motivated the founding fathers to grant religious freedom was derived from religion.
I believe the story goes something like this: they believed that each and every man was endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator, not least of which was the right of every man to give thanks to their Creator in the manner they saw most fit. As a result, they could not very well mandate certain forms of worship since that would be contrary to an individual's God granted rights.
Sadly, this distinction probably will cease to matter once the West finally reaches the conclusion that Islamic supremacists threaten their civilization to the point where all-out war is necessary to preserve it.
In WWII our fight was with the Nazi regime, not the German people. However, it was obvious to the Allies from the start that waging war against the former would inevitably involve killing a large number of the latter, and putting the rest through hell. I'll submit that not only is this also the case with Islam, but that it's become an axiom that can be applied to any war against a despotic or totalitarian power.The trouble with that, of course, is that to do so amounts to becoming an apostate and risking death at the hands of the violent types (or in the West, at the very least, being outcast and ostracized by the violent types' fellow travelers like CAIR).
A while back, I read the Koran for myself. Much of it was quite surprising to me, and I was able to cobble together a very nice religion out of it that I might, if pressed, be willing to adhere to. If pressed, I could argue for this home-made Islam by citing chapter and verse. But it did not resemble any form of Islam that I knew anything about. Maybe some day, some form of Islam will take hold that resembles my nice version. (It has many practical advantages that Muslims may some day appreciate.) But that will be for Muslims to decide, not for me to urge.
Yup. A Muslim has be pretty radical to be a moderate.
What did you mean by this:
Not an attack -- just curious.
- AJ
This is mystifying. Does an understanding of the OT help inform understanding the new? Of course. But the NT by itself is perhaps the most meaningful, profound work of any kind in human history (OK, let's say *one* of the most profound to show due respect to non-Western traditions). To say it is "meaningless" without the OT is to willfully overlook the hundreds of millions of people who have had their lives profoundly influenced by it, and yet who derive little or nothing from the OT.
By the way, is there any more tiresome internet cliche than the "Um, no"? If I've ever used it in the past, please accept my profound apologies.
- Alaska Jack
I have to disagree with you about the "most meaningful, profound work in human history" point, but that just goes to show that you're a Christian and I'm not.
You're talking past me a little here. I didn't suggest the NT makes the OT a dead letter. I simply pointed out that calling the NT "meaningless" without the OT is absurd. Can we agree that these are two different things? Surely many have read the NT on its own and found it deeply meaningful?
As to your second point, hmm, I suppose one could disagree with my characterization of the NT as "profound" -- OK, sloppy on my part, but if you don't find the NT, of all things, at least "profound" then you set your profundity bar pretty high! -- but surely the impact it's had on global culture requires more than an assertion of meaninglessness? I mean, I personally would hesitate to call the works of the Buddha and Confucious "meaningless," despite the fact that I am not an adherent of their tenets.
Finally, while I would like to consider myself a Christian, I'm afraid I'm not a very good one. I haven't even read the texts we're talking about. My point was a very, very narrow one.
Respectfully,
- AJ