Please don’t tell me you didn’t see this coming. Only a few months into her return from a self-imposed exile, the woman who the world would hail as a Muslim Mother Theresa is dead. The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto rocked the civilized world yesterday. Talks of Bhutto as a martyr, a revolutionary, and savior to the Pakistan world, coupled with the immediate suggestion that Generael Musharraf is culpable, hit the airwaves early and haven’t let up. It is a shame, but to me, this is just an average day in the life of Islam. Every other day there is some jihad homicide or bombing, and dozens dead, and yet somehow, we’re expected to believe that this death is going to mean a whole lot more than the others. If it does, the only significance is that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Even so, there is plenty of straw on the camel’s back already.Unlike the American dream of watching one’s children succeed in college and eventually have a profitable career, the Arabic dream is to watch one’s son and daughter strap themselves with some explosives and blow up a bus full of Jews. Why the disconnect?
We hear a lot in the news about how the attacks, bombings and rise of terrorism is simply the result of “religious fundamentalism”. Politically correct baloney. Can you imagine a fundamental Buddhist blowing up the Wailing Wall? Similarly, look at what has been labeled fundamental Christianity gone wrong in the past, and you’ll find it was either corrupt Catholics or crazy cults, not the sadly non-mainstream "solo scriptura" crowd.
We live in a society where the villains must be equal, where we’re so afraid to suggest that maybe, just maybe, most of the terror attacks that are happening in the world are the result of middle eastern men with a bone to pick with Jews, Christians, and Americans. Read the news, and you’ll see that journalists make an extra effort to report crimes committed by whites in order to make things seem balanced. Does this mean anything to suggest that other races are inferior? Not at all. However, you’re kidding yourself if you believe our historical and linguistically illiterate President when he says that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
Mr. President, with all due respect, I have grave concern about your ability to fight a war on terrorism if you believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Have you read your history books? Do you know the reason the Crusades started in the first place? Have you read nothing about the fall of Constantinople? This is not a religion of peace, it never has been, it never will be. Democracy and Islam are incompatible. Peanut butter and mustard. Michael Vick and dogs. Paris Hilton and abstinence only education. All three have a better mixing flavor than Democracy and Islam.
Suggesting that Islam isn’t a religion of terror is like suggesting that Mormons don’t like to marry tons of women, Catholics don’t pray to Mary, and Wiccans don’t read Harry Potter at every chance they get. It is a fundamental tenant of Islam to kill the infidel. In the Koran, Allah won’t return unless all the infidels have been converted or killed. Either or. You can’t convince me some baloney about how Islam is a religion of peace when no two Islamic countries have been able to live harmoniously in world history. Prop up as many historical experts as you can, but the Koran promotes jihad. The Muslims that do not believe in jihad are just members of a religious sect who have mentally erased part of their holy text in order to make it more appealing to the masses. To me, the best thing to happen to Islam is western civilization, corruption, and the love of money. As long as they continue to kill each other, I don’t mind. As long as they decide not to take the Koran seriously, I don’t mind. But a religion of peace? Never. Not unless they decide to rewrite the Koran. Until then, the reasonable Koran-following Muslim will always stand with a blade in hand, ready to convert or kill. Democracy in the Arabic world is dead before it was even born. Not surprising, fascism has a new face.
E.J. Wood is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a BA in Political Science, as well as BS in Public Administration. He currently is authoring a book called "Closing the Book on Christianity: The Post-Modern Christian’s War Against the Bible".Contact him at proantiundecided@hotmail.com
8 Comments:
Firstly, bravo.
"Wiccans don’t read Harry Potter at every chance they get"
I almost literally laughed out loud at that. I'm going to assume you were trying to make a joke there, and not seriously trying Harry Potter, a fantasy book aimed largely at children, with Wiccanism, a religion. If you were trying to make a valid connection, then... that might be even more funny, but anyway.
Is islam a religion of peace? No, not when taken literally. Is Judaism a religion of peace? No not when taken literally. Is Christianity a religion of peace? No not when taken literally. The problem with the entire Judea-Christian line of religions is they are based on a largely schizophrenic and vengeful god. Yes, Judaism, Christian and Islam all come from the same basic source, and yes, all boil down to roughly the same thing, give or take a few wacky customs. Sure they each have their own little twist on the same stories, which themselves are largely pulled from Macedonian and Egyptian myths. Seriously? I've always wondered if devoutly religious people just ignore the fact that many of their myths are stolen nearly identically from earlier religions, or if they just don't know that.
Regardless, just as the Bible will tell you to kill non-believers and do a whole slew of crazy things (stop wearing clothing of mixed fiber, and if I see you working on Sunday I'll stone your ass), so does the Koran. At it's core, the message they try to pull out of it is the same. Which, sadly is basically:
"God is great. God loves you. Don't trust anything that says this is wrong. If you obey this you get rewarded for eternity, if you don't you die. Who cares if this life sucks? Enjoy the next!"
I don't see how anyone can claim Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. I'll give you that there are more islamic extremists right now that christians out there. Islam is a newer religion, and in thrives in a less developed part of the world. If the middle east was populated by Christians who held their beliefs with the same conviction, we'd largely see the same reaction. Which would be, them blowing up our buildings in the name of Jesus Christ, because we interfere with their lives and largely don't comply with their belief system.
Sure some religions are inherently more or less violent than others. I'd say Buddhism as a belief system is less violent than most other religions. But Islam and Christianity... I'd say they are roughly the same.
Christianity was used for similar ends back when it was entrenched in less developed countries. Only thankfully, back then we didn't have AK-47s and C4. Sadly now we do have those and much more.
So, yes I agree with your premise that Islam is dangerous. However, it's not that it's more or less dangerous than the crazy things that a vast majority of the rest of the world belief.
Well, a couple things I feel should be replied to...
1) Yes, I'm just poking fun w/ the Wiccan comment.
2) Christianity, as I hope you know, is Judaism + the New Testament. The New Testament holds forth the trumping statement from Jesus Christ to Peter "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and states that vengence is God's, not man's. The Bible, including the New Testament, if taken literally, understands that the traditions of the Old Testament were impossible to keep completely and were made to show man's imperfections... (Paul illustrates this in great detail in the book of Romans)
...Therefore, Christianity, if taken literally... does not allow for "forced conversions", violence against people who do not accept the Bible, or anything of that matter. Has it happened? Yes. Does the Bible condone it when taken literally? Absolutely NOT.
If you want to attempt to make a claim Christianity (if followed fundamentally/literally) is as violent as Islam, I'd like some strong analysis of Biblical passages. The Old Testament, if taken by itself, would be quite violent. The New Testament is like the Enlightenment for the Old Testament as far as the Bible is concerned, if you will.
Kudos E!
Oh of course the new testament isn't as nearly all wrath and fire and brimstone as the old testament. I find it somewhat peculiar that you're... at this point anyway, basically saying the entire old testament is disposable. Isn't the ENTIRE bible supposed to be the word of god, absolute 100% truth?
However, if you want to ignore the old testament and look just to the new, I think you'll still find SEVERAL passages that at the VERY least send mixed messages. I can recall a certain passage where a certain J. Christ specifically says he comes not to bring peace, but to bring the sword.
There are SEVERAL violent passages in the new testament as well as the old. To suggest that the old testament can merely be overlooked and instead the new testament is perfect and contains no violent messages is naive. And also makes me wonder just how much one actually HAS read the bible. I certainly am no bible scholar, I've read a majority of it over the years, primarily in pieces. And while yes the old testament does contain most of the crazy violent messages, the new testament is not immune to such language either
However, at the very least I think it would take some MIGHTY strong 'interpretation' to wish away the violent messages of the bible, both old and new testaments.
I also hope you realize that Islam is just a remix of the Old Testament + New Testament + Muhammad.
It's not a word for word lifting of the old and new testament, but the gist is there.
Gist?
The Koran seems to have no gist of the two.
In Sura 2:216 Muslims are commanded to fight for the cause of Allah, even if they do not like, because Allah knows what is best for them: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not." Statements such as these make it abundantly clear that for a devout Muslims who follows the teachings of the Koran, fighting to advance the cause of Islam is a divine obligation that can hardly be ignored.
In Sura 8:12,13 Muslims are instructed to cut the necks and fingers of those who opposed God and to never turn their back on unbelievers: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. This because they contended against God and His Apostle. If any contend against God and his Apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe! When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day –unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own) – he draws on himself the wrath of God, and his abode is hell, – an evil refuge (indeed)! It is not ye who slew them; it was God."
Jews and Christians would not accept him as prophet, so they became part of the list of Islam's enemies to be conquered. Thus, warfare was no longer to be a defensive fighting, but an aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers. This is the final teaching of the Koran which is still in force today and has inspired the recent acts of terrorism.
There are several texts commanding offensive warfare to kill the pagans, Jews, and Christians. Among them Sura 9:5 stands out for its explicit injunction to slay the infidels: "When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [become Moslem], then open the way for them." The best way for people to save their lives, was by renouncing their religion and adopting the Islam faith. In some instances conquered people could save their lives by paying a heavy tribute and becoming submissive to Muslim rulers.
In the same chapter, Sura 9:29-31, Muslims are commanded to fight Jews and Christians until they are subdued. Those who submitted themselves to Muslim rulers were to be subjected to a heavy tribute. The reason is because God's curse is upon them: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God ... God's curse be on them."
Seems no where near even the Old Testament much less the New.
Compare these teachings in the Koran to the teachings of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount, and I think one can clearly define which is the "Religion of Peace".
Christianity.
Sigh.... Yet again Brando you've missed the crux of my argument. I have not suggest that the Koran was peaceful. I have simply suggested that it is no better than the Bible. A fact that Mr. Wood apparently already concede. That of course is being slightly unfair as he didn't concede it but instead suggest that the OT should somehow not be looked to for any kind of moral guidance because it is flawed. Something that preplexed me giving that I think that Christians believe the Bible is fact from the word of god? And is also the source of the 10 commandments, and nearly every scrap of text that would repremand homosexuality.
Certainly the Koran when taking literally is Violent. I have never said anything to the contrary. So pointing out instances where the Koran promotes violence does nothing.
"Seems no where near even the Old Testament much less the New."
That however, is not true. The Old Testament strictly suggest that you strike down those who try to sway you from 'God'. The Old Testament is full of the same things that the Koran is. The new is, admittedly better, but by no means perfect.
Sure you can pick out a passage here or there that suggest peace, however all this does is show the whole big sticky contradictory mess that the Bible is. The entire thing is full of "Turn the other cheek" yet "I bring the sword".
And once and for all is the Old Testament fact? Did God really flood the earth and then regret it later? How could an omniscient god be so wishy-washy as he is in the OT? So, is the OT fact, or is that something you just want to brush under the rug and hope no one looks at it. Because if ANYONE thinks the OT is FACT, they damn well better wake up tomorrow and drastically change their lives, because NO ONE that is reading this is living anywhere CLOSE to how the OT suggests, or even in a way that the OT does not condemn.
Alright that tell me about the New. What are the similarities?
Post a Comment
<< Home