Religions change over time but is Islam an inherently violent religion?

Daily Journal ^ | December 10, 2002 | Bob Thomas

[Destro]

Religions change over time

Bob Thomas, Daily Journal

December 10, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Is Islam an inherently violent religion? A debate on this subject has received much attention in the United States. The question is absurd. It is like asking whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Well, there is Francis of Assisi. And there is the Thirty Years' War. Which do you choose? Religions are interpreted by the people of their time and thus change over time. Scripture can be invoked to support almost any position. Islam has its periods of violence and its periods of tolerance. The Ottomans gave refuge to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain in 1492. Today the Arab world is the purveyor of the most vicious anti-Semitic propaganda since Nazi Germany. (Egyptian state television is currently showing a 41-part television series based on the notorious czarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

Which stands for the real Islam? The question is not just unanswerable, it is irrelevant. The real issue is not the essence of an abstraction--who can say what is the real Christianity or the real Judaism?--but the actions of actual Muslims in the world today. And there is no denying the fact, stated most boldly by Samuel Huntington, author of "The Clash of Civilizations?" that "Islam has bloody borders."

From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate-driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.

Take the most recent example, the Miss World riots in northern Nigeria. Muslim mobs respond to an offensive newspaper article by burning down the newspaper's offices, massacring innocent Christians and issuing a fatwa on the life of the author of the article.

In Sudan, the Arab government in Khartoum has for decades been conducting a genocidal campaign against the Christian and animist blacks in the south -- a campaign that includes mass starvation, the bombing of hospitals and slavery.

In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches, killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for "proselytizing."

The Bali disco bombers have confessed to a series of previous church bombings. In the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf specialize in kidnappings and beheadings of hostages in their terrorist campaign against the predominantly Catholic central government.

On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows -- in Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews. (The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 -- Islamic terrorism reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic "Crusaders."

This says nothing about inherent violence; the vast majority of Muslims are obviously peaceful people living within the rules of civilized behavior. But the actual violence, bloodletting against nearly every non-Muslim civilization from Hindu to African animist, demands attention. Underlying most of the individual grievances is a sense that Islam has lost its rightful place of dominance, the place it enjoyed half a millennium ago. Al Qaeda deputy Ayman Zawahiri's allusions to the loss of Andalusia (medieval Spain) reinforce the bin Laden promise of revenge and redemption.

This feeling of a civilization in decline -- and adopting terror and intimidation as the road to restoration -- is echoed in a recent U.N. report that spoke frankly of the abject Arab failure to modernize. It is one thing for the Arabs to have fallen behind the West. But to fall behind South Korea -- also colonized, once poor and lacking any of the Islamic world's fantastic oil wealth--is sheer humiliation.

Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia and leader of perhaps the largest Islamic society in the world, traces Islamic radicalism not just to a failure of self-respect and self-identity -- deep feelings of inadequacy and loss -- but also to an enormous failure of moderate Muslim leadership. The murderers speak in the name of Islam, and the peaceful majority cannot find the courage to challenge them.

"The Islamic world today is being held prisoner," writes Salman Rushdie, "not by Western but by Islamic captors, who are fighting to keep closed a world that a badly outnumbered few are trying to open." And "the majority remains silent." Until they speak, the borders of Islam will remain bloody.

[pgkdan]

Kindly prove to me and others here that my statement is a falsehood. What is the basis of your argument against my statement?

You made the statement...you prove it to be true. Exactly how many people have died from disease and disasters in the history of all the world? And please provide documentation.

And BTW...there's no "S" at the end of Fugit. Time flie"s" but Tempus Fugit.

[pgkdan]

guess you missed the part in history where the Catholic Church was aiding and abetting Hitler in his genocide of the Jewish people, huh?

Now you show your true colors. Liar. Bigot. Ignoramous.

[Capt. Tom]

From the original article- The murderers speak in the name of Islam, and the peaceful majority cannot find the courage to challenge them.

Why should they challenge them. And on what grounds? The murderers are following the religion to the letter.

To challenge them would be like moderate Christians attacking a group of Christians who follow the Ten Commandments on the grounds they are radicals and not with the modern world. - Tom

[Destro]

BAR, no need to bother with vtel57. Nazisim was a political/racial movement and was not based on religion. Jews who were Christian converts and in some cases priests were killed along with out right Christians by the Nazis. People who claim the Nazis were fighting for a religion are poor historians.

[stuartcr]

I agree in that the texts can't be genuinely manipulated, but we're talking about crazies here that read what they want into anything, not sane people. I'm sure many battles have been fought over the centuries, with both sides believing God was on their side.

[agrace]

I certainly agree with you there.

[rmlew]

The Catholkic Church did no such thing.
The Church saved well over 500,000 Jews.
More Jews were hidden by the Church in Rome than were taken in by the US from 1935-1945.

[Dasaji]

If there is such a thing as original sin, I think God's punishment for it is the concept of religion
________________________________________________

In either the Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads (Hindu sacred texts) I believe there is a passage that goes:

"God gave Man the Truth. Then Satan came along, organized it and called 'religion.'"

[stuartcr]

So the truth is unorganised? That must be why it's so hard to find. I'll have to read up on it, thanks.

[stuartcr]

Why do you feel that a religious affiliation is worth fighting for? What happens if you don't fight for it, won't your faith be the same?

[eleni121]

Be happy to.

Here is how I see it ----

"Ideology" definition: a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action.

This definition fits islam to a T.

1) Islam, has militaristic connotations - a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action.

2) Muslims also believe in the inherent goodness of people as over against the Christian doctrine of original sin - all you need to be "saved" is to be Muslim - unlike the notion of original sin which requires a Christian to struggle for grace.

3) Muslims need guidance and that guidance is the Islamic law, an all encompassing system that controls every aspect of everyday life.

"What is needed is a Muslim government to provide the legal and social framework necessary to facilitate submission to the law. There is no separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state. This community is one, universal, and cohesive..."

From Dr Samuel Schlorff, "Can you explain for me the Mindset of the Islamic Terrorist?" Arab World Ministries, 2001

Since its origins - islam/ or Mohamed's revenge on Jews and Christians and anyone who does not submit - has used force - violent military action - subjugation, enslavement, mass atrocities, and genocide even to this day - to achieve its goals.

[vtel57]

So, as I see it here... you (as a Christian, I'm assuming... and if I'm incorrect in that assupmtion, I apologize) are saying that your views and beliefs are right and the Muslims' views and beliefs are wrong. Is that accurate? If so, your line of thinking is EXACTLY the type of thinking that leads to the death and chaos that I've stated is brought about by organized religions in this world. That type of stance perpetuates the "us" vs "them" problem that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time. This just proves my point that religions widen the rift between us rather than bring us together.

Regards,

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@softhome.net

[vtel57]

I've read many differing versions of the Catholic Church's stance on Hitler and the Nazis during and after WWII... I have not completely determined what the truths to that matter really are. It's a difficult subject to research due to revisionism, biased reporting, and secrecy within the Church itself. If you know of a definitive version, I'd be interested to know about it.

Thanks,

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@softhome.net

[vtel57]

>People who claim the Nazis were fighting for a religion are poor historians.

I don't believe I ever made any claim that the Nazis were fighting a religious war... nor have I claimed to be an historian.

What is it about the main point of my posting that is so difficult for you folks to focus on? It's not about religion. It's not about war. It's about mankind facing the fact that while we are all different in many ways, we are also much the same. My argument is that organized religions have seperated us further and magnified our differences to the point where we KILL one another because of HATE that is generated by our perceptions of those differences. Is that so hard to understand and see?

I know that I'm dealing with moderate to highly intelligent and interested people here in this forum. I doubt that any of you are isolationists, nationalists, bigots, or racists. Is the anti-religious aspect of my postings what is putting some of you on the defensive? If so, maybe you need to ask yourselves why that is and what is it saying about you and your feelings about ALL your fellow beings on this planet. Do you believe that some are inferior to you due to their beliefs? I would think better of you than that. I wish to believe that this is NOT the case with any of you.

Regards,

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@softhome.net

[vtel57]

Actually, that "Tempus Fugits" was a favorite saying of my mother's. She knew that it was a bastardization of the proper Latin. I've maintained it as she used it in honor of her memory. Thank you for mentioning it though.

Regards,

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@softhome.net

[vtel57]

As I stated to someone else here there is quite a bit of evidence and reporting to suspect that the Catholic Church was abetting, even if by turning a blind eye, Hitler's final solution. However, there is also an abundance of defensive evidence and reporting to show that the Catholic Church was innocent of complicity in Hitler's schemes.

So, admitting that... I suppose I should also apologize for making that statement all together because there is no definitive evidence pointing to either option. Therefore, I do apologize for the statement. Research the issue yourself, if you're interested.

>Now you show your true colors. Liar. Bigot. Ignoramous.

As to that statement, I'm sorry that I've angered you to the point where civil discourse has failed us and you've decided to personally insult me. Reading of my posts in this thread should show anyone here that I'm trying to point out that man needs to learn to get along with his fellow man. Nothing I've written here espouses bigotry... and as far as being deceitful, opinions are what the holder of the opinion believes in his heart. It cannot be pidgeon-holed as right/wrong, lie/truth, etc. It can only be agreed to or disagreed to based on the reader's own opinions.

Regards,

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@softhome.net