Posted on 10/12/2001 10:19:27 AM PDT by ArGee
There are many who will say, regarding the undeclared war since the atrocities of 9-11, that we are not in a religious war, that we are not to wage war on Islam but on the terrorists who seek to embroil the world of Islam in a global struggle against anything non-Islamic. Make no mistake, it is a religious war to the terrorists. Let us now explore the fundamental differences (religious/cultural/philosophical in nature) in belief systems as they apply to the current conflict.
If Islamism is to be eradicated, it will have to be done by Muslims. It will become apparent why, shortly, for what Osama bin Laden seeks to export worldwide is a sub-sub-sect of Islamic faith. [The following essay regarding Islam, Christianity, and Judaism will be cursory at best where fundamentals of three great religions are concerned. No attempt will be made to completely summarize what takes vast written volumes just to enumerate. We will try only to touch the highlights as they apply to the current worldwide struggle against terrorism.]
The three great religions of note in the current struggle are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Setting Christianity aside for a moment, it is essential to note that both Jew and Arab are descended from the patriarch, Abram, or Abraham.
In scriptures acknowledged by both Islam and Judaism the story of Abram’s first two sons is the line of original demarcation for these two great religious traditions. Arabs claim the blessings of God through Abram to Ishmael; Jews claim the blessings of God through Abram to Isaac; there are people to be studied that are older than both, the Bedouin, who inhabited the world in which Abram sojourned and whose traditions were undoubtedly known and followed by Abram before and after God called him out of Ur. We will get back to the Bedouin in a moment.
Both Judaism and Islam claim human lineage back to Adam. That is essential, especially for Islam since the holy Kaaba in Mecca is believed by Muslims to have been rebuilt many times since Adam’s first construction. [The Kaaba predates Judaism and Islam; readers should search this word to dig deeper into Muslim traditions. We won’t try to elucidate the Kaaba here ... http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/06791.html.]
Both Judaism and Islam lay claim to interaction with God, the Creator of us all. Both religions have at their core the notion of earning from God a place in the afterlife. Both religions deem evil as a real force, personified in a being that is not God. Both religions at one time or now may be understood as a matrix of religion and culture, thus both religions have traditions of non-separation of ‘church and state’; both—especially the extreme fundamentalist forms of both—are still deeply engrossed in this meld of religion and societal institutions. This is very different from our American way of thinking, but it is not necessarily bad, just a different way of constructing society.
The essence of our current clash with Islamism (the radicalized deadly tumor growing near the heart of Islam) may be understood best as totalitarian, where adherents seek to force fundamental religious behavior on others and justify killing in the name of this ‘conversion’, even to the extent of killing without remorse those fellow Muslims who do not follow the strict rigors of Islamism.
It is important to note that adhering to strict fundamental rigors of Islam doesn’t necessarily breed killing such as seen 9-11, for there is in Saudi Arabia the sect of Wahhabism which is very restrictive, yet this sect doesn’t seek to kill any who do not conform, Muslim or non-Muslim … but it is from this fundamentalist form of Islam that Osama bin Laden has arisen, and some few in Saudi Arabia have supported him all along.
For American understanding, let’s compare this phenomenon of Islamism to a very restrictive sect within the Baptist denomination of Christianity gradually building a hatred for modern life with its degradation of women, children, the poor, the … well, you get the gist; this imaginary sect of radical Baptists become so incensed that they take up terrorism against television networks and bars and strip joints to force an end to these abominations as they perceive the clash of their belief system and the world around them. Radicals seeking to force adherence to ‘righteousness’, as they define it, would perceive their struggle as a holy war, while America in general would perceive their acts and their underlying beliefs as totalitarian in nature.
We must not make the mistake of painting the entire of Saudi Arabia with the radical paint of bin Laden’s ‘holy aggression/holy terror’ for the sect from which his beliefs arise is at peace within Saudi Arabia and they have every right to exist and live as they wish within their own society. As contrast, we don’t have the right to force women’s liberation and ‘abortion on demand’ on societies outside of America, no matter what N.O.W. may claim; emancipation of women, if it is to occur, must occur within the context of each society as it exists in the arena of its cultural heritage; if we try to force adherence to our cultural peculiarities, we are behaving as an Osama bin Laden. Osama seeks to export by force his fundamentals, to ‘evangelize’ the entire world and force conversion to his belief system, in his demented service to allah, the allah of his definition, not Allah of the Koran, the Allah of Islam.
Let’s turn now to Islam and Judaism as different from Christianity, in the context of our current struggle against terrorism. If Islam and Judaism are religions of works, of earning blessings from God, Christianity may be seen as religion of grace not of works to achieve paradise; paradise is to be earned in Islam and Judaism, whereas it is the gift of God in Christ as defining Christianity, then the good works follow as evidence of a transformed soul. In a way, the ‘law’ of Judaism and the submission of Islam are to be contrasted with the grace principle of Christianity. Where Islam has most fundamental issue with Christianity is the notion of the trinity, of God in three persons, for the basic tenet of Islam is ‘there is only Allah’, not three god persons, thus Islam defines Christianity as polytheism, yet they recognize Jesus as a prophet from God. Interestingly, the founder of Wahhabism, Sheik Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab (18th century), took a similar approach to the veneration of Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, as of Jesus described above; he believed Muslims raised the worship of Muhammed to a level of polytheism, equating the Prophet with the position of Allah, and to him this was an abomination.
Before there was Judaism or later Islam, there were Bedouin (actually, nomadic Arabs) all across the Middle East and North Africa. The Bedouin have a well-defined system of ethic and culture that holds highest esteem for the family and tribe, loyalty and honesty. Bedouin tradition is the garden from which the cultural aspects of Judaism and Islam have arisen, though I doubt the high leaders of either religion would admit to such an anthropology.
The ferocity with which Islamic and Judaic traditions remain inflexible has roots in the traditions of the Bedouin. To understand how the Saudis can allow our involvement for commerce and defense, while expecting us—as far as possible—to not violate their rigors of religion and societal construction, one should look to Bedouin traditions, not bin Laden’s insanities. Ruling the kingdom, al Saud family has sought to bring some measure of modernity to the people while maintaining the rigors of their faith, but they haven’t sought to kill anyone that does not submit … being tossed out of Saudi Arabia is fairly easy, but the guest that does not blaspheme their faith is welcome in a way few in the West could understand, for generosity is a Bedouin grace and al Saud have raised this grace to a high art one can understand only after experiencing it directly, and not with a Western filter!
We should differentiate the totalitarian nature of bin Laden’s extreme Islamism from the great tradition of Islam that can co-exist and has co-existed for over a thousand years. Yes, Wahhabism of the Saudis is extreme faith, but even in its extreme it has shown the ability to co-exist if treated with the dignity any religious fervor is allowed in a complex world of clashing cultures. Osama bin Laden’s mutation from Wahhabism cannot co-exist with other religions nor with less extreme Muslim traditions, and thus it is a danger for all humankind, not the least of which are the faithful in the Middle East, especially Saudis who are not on his wavelength of death and mayhem.
What bin Laden represents and is seeking to achieve is best understood as totalitarian, as subjugation, with annihilation for those who will not bow before his extreme. Because of this holy terror, Osama bin Laden and his network must be eradicated from the earth, and the use of terror must be ended in theaters of international and regional interaction.
Osama—and most casting their lot with him in his extremism—would have the state of Israel annihilated and the Middle East wedded to Islamism, ‘purifying’ the region and eventually the entire world to the exclusion of all other faiths. To achieve that goal, these fanatics will destroy America with religious zeal, believing they generate a debt owed to them by God that they will collect the instant of their death, forcing their way even into paradise. Such insanity (for they awaken in Hell) cannot be negotiated with and certainly cannot be allowed to continue as these terrorist acquire weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems, for they have proven they will go to any extreme to foster their totalitarian ends; they don’t want to co-exist! This had better not be Islam’s future, for once the evil jinns of biological weapons are released en masse they cannot be stuffed back into their rocks, back into their confinements. [When you read the history of Bedouin, the reference to jinns will be apparent. It would behoove we Westerners to strive for better understanding of Bedouin traditions that have lent their influence forward in time in the Middle East, for they are fundamental to Israeli and Islamic thinking processes.]
I strongly disagree - especially with the capricious part. G-d is extremely reliable. However, it's hard to have a discussion around generalities. Would you care to pick a specific example so we can discuss it? I am not an M.Div. or anything but I have read the OT a few times and would enjoy the conversation.
Shalom.
The Bible, OT and NT, have certain themes that are consistent throughtout. This is often called the fingerprint of God. Does the Qu'ran also contain these fingerprints that litter the OT and NT?
We can use an example of the fingerprint, or consistent theme, of shedding innoscent blood to atone for sin. First there were Adam and Eve that God gave them animal skins to cover themselves after they sinned. Later there was animal sacrifice. The grand finale was God becoming man and becoming the ultimate sacrifice to cover sin.
Any ideas?
God is not limited, therfore by definition he can not be petty or capricious. Jealous, yes. He states that very clearly.
I'm not sure which translation you are using, but your first quote isn't quite correct. Every word of G-d proves pure or flawless or perfect. The Hebrew supports the rendering "pure." The word "true" can apply, but not as in G-d being incapable of lying. I don't believe G-d lies, or that you have supported that He does. But you have incorrectly shared Proverbs verse.
According to my review of the remaining verses, G-d did not decieve anyone. The only verse that you quoted that could possibly provide support was the Jeremiah verse. But even then, it does not make it clear that G-d himself has uttered a prophecy to deceive. It does make G-d responsible for the deception. But a very reasonable interpretation of the verse is that the Jews were deceived because G-d was not punishing them. Ecclesiastes and Habakkuk both speak to this point. When G-d delays punishment men's hearts are hardened to commit sin.
Shalom.
As far as I know, John is going to explore the inconsistencies between the themes of the Christian Bible (OT and NT) and the themes of the Q'uran. I don't know if John is going to explore the internal consistency of teh Q'uran but I can ask.
Or you can.
Shalom.
Satan would never admit that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, to save mankind from sin. The New Testament clearly says this, so Satan could not have dictated it.
It may or may not have been Satan himself, but if it was not him, it was one of his fellow fallen angels, who would not do it without getting his permission.
Shalom.
Having said that, I commend him and anyone else for furthering the dialogue and trying to bring about a greater understanding and tolerance of Islam.
I'm sorry. You missed some good stuff.
The Protestant Bible is comprised of 66 books. The Roman Catholic Bible is a little larger. We divide the Bible into OT and NT, but G-d did not. It is one story from Genesis to Revelation.
Shalom.
This is indeed a difficult thing to understand and it takes some serious discipleship to deal with it. This is a stumbling block for new Christians. They have to trust G-d until they get to know Him better and understand both how He operates and how He speaks before they are truly comfortable with it.
Methinks most of us go to our grave with questions about this one.
Since the answer is not simple, I will not try to present my limited understanding of the whole thing nor why I have come to that understanding. Here is a short version.
If I threaten my son with something too small, I actually encourage him to disobey. You could say I harden his heart. But if I go directly to the punishment that is sufficiently harsh to cause him to obey, he would call me unjust because I had not given him an opportunity to do well with a lighter threat. So, which should I do? The just step-by-step approach which gives him the chance to do well before the punishment is severe or simply jump to where I know I will wind up, skipping the preliminaries.
Pharoah was not going to let the Israelites go until the death of his son. That's what it was going to take all along. The smaller measures only served to cause Pharoah's heart to harden. G-d took responsibility for that because G-d knew that would be the result. But who realy did the hardening? G-d or Pharoah?
In the end, Pharoah had the full choice to let the Hebrews go whenever he wished. Pharoah takes the full blame for the destruction of Egypt.
But G-d knew it would happen, and the merciful G-d did not lay all the blame on Pharoah. The merciful G-d also provided a way for Pharoah to be with Him in Heaven. His name is Jesus.
Do you know Him?
Shalom.
Is that a family name?
From: Hard Sayings of the Bible: IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF FALSEHOOD? (1 KINGS 22:20-22)
Could the God of truth be guilty of sponsoring or condoning falsehood? Some have charged just that. The passages that are raised to back this charge are 1 Kings 22:20-23, 2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Jeremiah 4:10, 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.
Such a charge is possible only if one forgets that many biblical writers dismiss secondary causes and attribute all that happens directly to God, since he is over all things. Therefore, statements expressed in the imperative form of the verb often represent only what is permitted to happen. Accordingly, when the devils begged Jesus to let them enter the swine, he said, “Go” (Mt 8:31). This did not make him the active sponsor of evil; he merely permitted the demons to do what they wanted to do. In a similar manner, Jesus commanded Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly” (Jn 13:27). But Jesus did not become the author of the evil perpetrated on himself.
God can be described as deceiving Ahab only because the biblical writer does not discriminate between what someone does and what he permits. It is true, of course, that in 1 Kings 22 God seems to do more than permit the deception. Without saying that God does evil that good may come, we can say that God overrules the full tendencies of preexisting evil so that the evil promotes God’s eternal plan, contrary to its own tendency and goals. Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment.
That God was able to overrule the evil does not excuse the guilty prophets or their gullible listener. Even though the lying spirit had the Lord’s permission, this did not excuse the prophets who misused their gifts. They fed the king exactly what he wanted to hear. Their words were nothing less than echoes of the king’s desires. Thus the lying prophets, the king and Israel were equally culpable before God. The responsibility had to be shared. These prophets spoke “out of their own minds.”
This principle is further confirmed when we note that the passage in question is a vision that Micaiah reveals to Ahab. God is telling Ahab, “Wise up. I am allowing your prophets to lie to you.” In a sense, God is revealing further truth to Ahab rather than lying to him. If God were truly trying to entrap Ahab into a life-threatening situation, he would not have revealed the plan to him! Even so, Ahab refuses to heed God’s truth, and he follows his prophets’ advice.
The other two passages used to charge God with falsehood are easier to understand. In Ezekiel 14:9 we have another case of God allowing spiritual blindness to take its course. The biblical writer merely attributes the whole process of hardening of heart followed by judgment as falling within God’s sovereignty. The strong statement of Jeremiah 20:7 is a complaint by the prophet, who had mistaken the promise of God’s presence for the insurance that no evil or derision would come on him or his ministry. However, these verses cannot be cited as the basis for giving any credence to the charge that God is deceptive.
Another instance where God sent an evil spirit was in Judges 9:23. There, one of Gideon’s sons, Abimelech, acted as king for three years over the city of Shechem. But after those three years, God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem so that they “acted treacherously against Abimelech.” In this case, the “evil spirit” was the breaking out of discord and treachery against Abimelech. Once again, under the direction of his providence, but not in any positive agency, God allowed jealousies to arise, which produced factions and in turn became insurrections, civil discontent and ultimately bloodshed. God remained sovereign in the midst of all the evil that ensued—much of it deservedly happening to those who deliberately refused the truth and preferred their own version of reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.