Posted on 09/15/2004 6:37:49 PM PDT by sauerkraut
PARIS, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- Editor's note: This is the first installment of a new UPI book review series on the chasm between Islam and Christianity. Three authors, one American, two Germans, show with scholarly precision their differences the discussion of which is stifled by political correctness. This installment deals with Alvin J. Schmidt's book, "The Great Divide, The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West" (Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2004), 332 pp, $ 19.95.
Alvin J. Schmidt, a U.S. sociologist and theologian of note, is not one for mincing words. In his new book, "The Great Divide," he describes Islam as the most violent religion the world has ever known.
This, of course, is not the most fashionable thing to say, even though millions might entertain this notion, especially after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, the terrorist attacks on commuter trains in Madrid in March, and the recent kidnapping of 1,200 students, teachers and parents in Russia, an event ending in the massacre of some 350 children and adults.
"Criticism of Islam," Schmidt notes, "is not permitted today because it is defined as 'mean-spirited.'"
Better to sanitize Islam by omitting from a book on the Koran all passages commanding violent behavior in jihad (holy war), as did Michael Sell in his 1999 volume "Approaching the Qu'ran: The Early Revelations," according to Schmidt, who does the opposite by listing 35 such passages verbatim.
We remember: Immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, Western commentators, this columnist included, tried to counter anti-Muslim sentiment by pointing out that the term, Jihad, had two senses: On the one hand, it meant taking up the sword on behalf of one's religion. But the other, more significant, meaning was the effort to overcome what Germans call "der innere Schweinehund," or the internal pig-dog, in other words, weak faith.
There is no reason to be ashamed of this. As journalism professor Marvin Olasky reminds his readers in his foreword to Schmidt's book even now quite correctly, Muslims should not be blamed for the brutality committed in the name of their religion. But Islam should not be exonerated either.
Contrary to the currently trendy mantra, Islam is not a "religion of peace." Schmidt makes this clear by stressing that while, to quote Tertullian, the blood of its martyrs was the seed of the Christian church, Islam grew by killing those who opposed it.
This is the point where Islam's apologists counter, "Yes, but what about the Crusades? What about the Inquisition?" Postmodernism has a funny way of fudging historical timeframes. As Schmidt states, "Early Christianity grew and expanded during its first 300 years without resorting to any form of violence, even when countless numbers of Christians were severely persecuted."
Schmidt eloquently condemns the Crusaders' bloodshed for what it was - contrary to the Gospel. But he hammers home the uncomfortable truth that while nowhere in the New Testament Jesus counsels bloodshed for the propagation of faith, Mohammed wantonly had people massacred, and indeed participated in their slaughter.
"The Great Divide" is really about all that - and more. It is about the little talked-about differences between the two seemingly related religions; it is about differences in meaning with dire consequences for the contemporary world.
Take the word, martyr, which in Greek signifies witness, and thus something positive. Writes Schmidt:
"For the longest time, the term martyr in history referred to a Christian who, in the early church under the Romans, was persecuted and often executed for bearing witness to Christ's life, death and resurrection. Martyrs died for their convictions without resisting or resorting to any form of violence."
"But now," Schmidt continues, "Muslims, and many in the media, have turned the meaning of martyr on its head. Now it is commonly used to refer to an individual who sacrifices himself as an Islamist suicide bomber when he, for example, blows up a busload of innocent people."
There is a tendency, even among Christian theologians, to make light of the "Divide" Schmidt is talking about. As one Jesuit scholar recently opined before mainline Protestants in the United States, "In order to get along better with Islam, Christians will simply have to become less Christian."
Less Christian? Does that mean that they will have to follow Christ less faithfully on the issues Schmidt deals with - such as the concept of the separation of church and state, which the authors of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imported from "Christ's Caesar-and-God teaching," according to Schmidt?
Less Christian? Does that mean we should "frown and turn (our) back" on a blind man, as Mohammed has done, according to the Koran's Sura 80:1-2, instead of emulating Jesus, who took compassion on the lame, the deaf and the sick - and healed two of them (Matthew 28:29-34).
Should we ignore the crucial difference between the two religions concerning the treatment of women? Jesus' views on women greatly influenced the West's treatment of them, Schmidt rightly states.
Mohammed, who left nine widows when he died in 632 A.D., set an entirely different example to his followers. The horrors suffered by women to this day in the Islamic world, and of late even in Muslim ghettos in the West, are described ghastly detail in "The Great Divide" and a newly released German study titled "Frauen und die Sharia" (Women and the Shari'a) by two of Europe's most outstanding Islamic studies specialists, Christine Schirrmacher and Ursula Spuler-Stegemann.
Their highly scholarly account of the tortures, beatings, stoning, rapes, forced marriages and other dignities in the name of religious law will be the topic of the next installment of this series.
"The wisest woman is worth less than the dumbest man," is the guiding attitude in Islam's patriarchal society, according to Schirrmacher. One wonders to what length political correctness is prepared to go to digest even that appalling statement.
Thanks to Dr. Schmidt for sharing this information as posted on the Sturm list.
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Allah or Jesus?
Allah or Jesus?
by Rick Mathes
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance.
During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.
The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven.
If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"
I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He sheepishly replied, "Yes."
I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"
The Imam was speechless.
I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me.
Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Senders words: Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.
I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized.
Please pass this on to all your email contacts.
This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry.
My Words...now I don't know if this is a true story, since I just recieved it but thought it was interesting just the same......and besides weather true or not it's the content that counts, right Dan
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Allah or Jesus?
Allah or Jesus?
by Rick Mathes
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance.
During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.
The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven.
If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"
I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He sheepishly replied, "Yes."
I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"
The Imam was speechless.
I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me.
Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Senders words: Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.
I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized.
Please pass this on to all your email contacts.
This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well known leader in prison ministry.
My Words...now I don't know if this is a true story, since I just recieved it but thought it was interesting just the same......and besides weather true or not it's the content that counts, right Dan
sorry about the double post
The story is an eloquent telling of the contrast between Islam and Christianity. I would be happier if I knew it to be true. It gets passed around by e-mail almost like a chain letter, and may be an urban legend. I see you have a name attached, which makes it more credible than the last time I read it. But when? at what prison? What was the imam's name? Someone should give a more detailed telling with verifiable facts to boost its impact by making it plain it's true.
Rather than concern yourself with the names and places, why not concern yourself with the representation of beliefs that's been presented here?
Was the given definition of "martyr", as used by followers of Islam, true or false?
Was the given definition of "infidel", as used by followers of Islam, true or false?
Was the restatement of the purpose of "jihad", as used by followers of Islam, true or false?
How would knowing the names (of the parties taking part in this conversation) change the veracity of the answers given as they relate to the faith of Islam?
People are so sensitive these days.
"Jesus" versus "Mohammed" is not apples and apples; One was the Son of God (to His followers) while the other was the "Prophet of Prophets" (to his followers).
Members of the Klu Klux Klan are responisible for what their organizations does, and it if they do not like it, they need to leave that organization. The heat needs to be turned up on the Islamics.
I guess you've not read any of my critiques of the moral decline in the Islamic conception of martyrdom. Classically it was more similar to the Christian notion--death for the faith at the hands of unbelievers--with the important difference that death in battle counted. It is only in the last century that self-destruction in the killing of unbelievers was redefined as 'martyrdom' in most Islamic circles. This change is the influence of Sayed Qutb, who imported into Islam the existentialist notion of absolute commitment as the only reals source of meaning. The Koranic prohibitions on suicide somehow get trumped in this neo-Islamic conception by self-destruction in the pursuit of jihad as proof of absolute submission (reimaged as existentialist absolute commitment) to Allah.
The modern Islamist is much more akin to the Nazi neo-pagan or the devotee of the official Japanese Imperial cult during WW II than may seem obvious. All three movements are romantic attempts to recapture a mythical golden era defined in religious terms in contradistinction from Christendom (yes, even the Japanese Imperial cult--the Meiji recognized monotheism as an American strength, and reached back to the notion of the Emperor as the descendant of the Sun Goddess in an artificial reconstruction of kami worship), all three have imbibed fragments of Western thought and are not really representative of the classical form of the religion they purport to reestablish.
(Yes, I know about the hadiths and the Koranic verses about killing infidels. But after Mohammed's death, Islam settled down--the late Arab caliphs had Christian Lord Chamberlains (St. John of Damascus, who even wrote a critique of Islam), the Turks were content with kidnapping Christian children and subtle persecution, the Moguls even finally generated fatwas according Hindus almost the same status as 'people of the book' because it was too much trouble to follow the Koranic injunctions to kill idolaters.)
And, I can even think of two exceptions to death in battle not counting as Christian martyrdom: St. Lazar and His Companions Who Died on the Field of Kosovo, and (commemorated mostly by Russian Orthodox monarchists and converts to Orthodoxy with ties to the British Isles) St. Harold, Last Orthodox King of England, and His Companions Who Died at Hastings.
A false story is a false story. Fiction is fiction, history is history. If we try to pass off fiction as history, on the grounds that the fiction contains something we consider true, then we're no better than Dan Rather. If this alleged conversation did not occur we shouldn't be pretending it did. We're supposed to be interested in the Truth.
Absolutely correct..they cannot and should not be compared.
This sounds like an invented story. I seriously doubt any Imam would have been ashamed of promoting the religion he claims to believe in in the first place.
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.