Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>
Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison
    Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 04:45
So I got the idea to start this thread after writing an atypically long response to an article posted by Zagros. I felt that some of the issues raised by the article, as well as polemical tendencies by both Christians and Muslims, merited a deeper discussion and a more thourough comparison. It is my hope that we can all handle a difficult topic like this with maturity and erudition. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the article, which may be found here:
 
 
Originally posted by Zagros

This essay is a good example of how pretty much any religion can be denigrated by out of context quotations and select historical events.
 
Agreed, but as we shall see the issue of "inherency", which the author of the article has raised, complicates matters. The article, itself, is analogous to much of the polemical nonsense written against Islam in the West -- a fact which we have both acknowledged. The fact that these attacks, themselves, are polemical nonsense does not mean, however, that there aren't legitimate questions to be raised about the different ways in which separate religions contextualize, interpret, and sometimes justify acts of violence. This article is of value for two reasons: 1) it provides us with an example of an anti-Christian, pro-Muslim polemic; and 2) it raises, through the author's unsuccessful effort to establish a satisfactory principle of inherency (within a proper historical context), a list of peripheral questions surrounding the interpretation and comparison of Christianity and Islam. For the purposes of brevity and clarity I shall treat these broader questions incidentally, in the context of this article. That said, I shall, undoubtedly, have to add one more topic to the innumerable list of threads I have been planning. LOL
 
Anyway, the two chief recurrent problems with this article are the misrepresentation of aspects of the Christian faith -- either deliberate or from ignorance -- and the taking of both Christianity and Islam out of the context of history -- which I believe is deliberate, but that, of course, would depend upon the education and intellectual ability/character of the author (at certain points I had to wonder if he didn't intend a bit of satire, but the tone and the interspersion of certain legitimate points led me to believe otherwise). Both of these flaws, once again, are part of the traditional religious polemic. Upon deeper examination, however, these flaws are easily exposed and the proper context becomes more apparent. I think the best place to start in debunking this article would be to address the exegesis -- or rather the lack of exegesis -- displayed by the author in citing and interpreting the quotes he presents. After this, we shall briefly examine the historical context of both Christianity and Islam. Finally, we shall address some of the legitimate points this article makes regarding the historical distortions of the inherently peaceful Christian faith.
 
I should note, at this point, that I am well aware that the purpose of posting this thread was to provide "a good example of how pretty much any religion can be denigrated by out of context quotations and select historical events"; I think it serves this purpose well. My contention is that a deeper dialogue will establish real differences which are of great significance in any attempted comparison between Christianity and Islam.
 
 
 
Exegetical Drivel:
 
Any quotation, Scriptural or otherwise, requires interpretation. No textual fact is so self-evident that someone who is convinced of his own rightness -- or bent on sowing discord -- will not eventually find some way to dispute it. It is our interpretation of a text which lends it its meaning -- or, rather, which extracts its meaning. So what should be our benchmark for the way in which either Christianity or Islam understand various passages of Scripture? Why the narrative of history, of course. Smile
 
When I say that we must look to the "narrative of history" in determining how the Christian and Muslim Scriptures may be authentically interpreted, I include two very separate -- but equally important -- types of history: 1) the history of exegesis, or how the scholars of each faith interpreted the holy texts; and 2) the history of practical events, or how the interpretations of these scholars have been applied. With regard to the Christian faith, I am somewhat capable of establishing both historical contexts; I am less qualified to discuss the first of these historical categories with regard to Islam. Still, since Muhammad took an active part in the practical application of Muslim doctrine, I feel that we may justly combine both historical categories in the case of Islam. That said, if anyone is up to the task, I would be interested to know how the faith was interpreted by Muslim scholars in the century or so immediately following the life of Muhammad. Anyway, let's to the texts. Smile
 
Originally posted by Article

In any case, to be a non-fundamentalist and non-violent Christian they have to ignore many plain passages of the Bible. Christianity, unlike Islam, has a basic teaching that mandates hatred and abuse of people who follow other religions. Violence is mainstream; it is not just a misguided few. When you read verses from the Bible, you see how it instructs the killing of the infidel, and violence on outsiders.
 
This is a blatant distortion of the Christian message, and relies upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of revelation, as well as the difference between the Old and New Covenants. It should always be remembered that the history of salvation before the Incarnation bears both a practical and an instructional dimension. The Law is always a tutor to lead us to Christ; consequently, Christ is the only lense through which we may hope to interpret the significance of the events of the Old Testament for Christians under the New Covenant. We shall see this in the following quotations:
 
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
 
This verse (Ex 32: 27) is an account of the events immediately after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf while Moses was on Mt. Sinai. Moses commanded the sons of Levi to purge the Israelite camp of those who had betrayed the Lord. Since the Israelites were the chosen people of God, through which the New Covenant was to be delivered to all mankind, their preservation -- both physically and spiritually -- was necessary. It is in this context that the Fathers interpreted this punishment as mercy. Caesarius of Arles states:
 
Behold true and perfect charity: he ordered the death of a few people in order to save six hundred thousand, with the women and children accepted. If he had not been aroused with zeal for God to punish a few men, God's justice would have destroyed them all. [Sermon, 40.1]
 
Gregory the Dialogist sees an instructive message, which could be adapted to a modern context:
 
To put the sword on the thigh is to prefer the zeal for preaching to the pleasures of the flesh, so that when one is zealous for speaking of holy matters, he must be careful to overcome forbidden temptations. To go from gate to gate is to hasten with rebuke from vice to vice, whereby death enters the soul. To pass through the midst of the host is to live with such perfect impartiality within the church as to rebuke the faults of sinners and not turn aside to favor anyone. Therefore it is properly added: "Let every man kill his brother and friend and neighbor"; that is, a man kills his brother and friend and neighbor when, discovering what should be punished, he does not refrain from using the sword of reproof, even in the case of those whom he loves for his kinship with them. [Pastoral Care, 3.25]
 
As we can see, the practical message of the text (the preservation of the nation of Israel, through which God would become incarnate) is accompanied by an instructional message. The author may dispute the moral implications of the event itself, but he does so out of context. He may not attribute any inherent violence to Christianity on this point.
 
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
 
This passage (Num 31: 17) refers to the aftermath of the war between the Israelite's and the Midianites. Again the issue is the preservation of the nation of Israel, and again there is an instructional message that we derive. Ambrose of Milan sums up both nicely:
 
How great a thing justice is can be gathered from the fact that there is no place, nor person, nor time, with which it has nothing to do. It must even be preserved in all dealings with enemies. For instance, if the day or the spot for a battle has been agreed upon with them, it would be considered an act against justice to occupy the spot beforehand, or to anticipate the time. For there is some difference whether one is overcome in some battle by a severe engagement, or by superior skill, or by a mere chance. But a deeper vengeance is taken on fiercer foes, and on those that are false as well as on those who have done greater wrongs, as was the case with the Midianites. For they had made many of the Jewish people to sin through their women; for which reason the anger of the Lord was poured out upon the people of our fathers. Thus it came about that Moses when victorious allowed none of them to live. On the other hand, Joshua did not attack the Gibeonites, who had tried the people of our fathers with guile rather than with war, but punished them by laying on them a law of bondage. Elisha again would not allow the king of Israel to slay the Syrians when he wished to do so. He had brought them into the city, when they were besieging him, after he had struck them with instantaneous blindness, so that they could not see where they were going, For he said: "Thou shall not smite those whom thou hast not taken captive with thy spear and with thy sword. Set before them bread and water, that they may eat and drink and return and go to their own home." Incited by their kind treatment they should show forth to the world the kindness they had received. "Thus" (we read) "there came no more the bands of Syria into the land of Israel." [Duties of the Clergy, 1.29.139]
 
In other words, the preservation of the nation of Israel and the immediate practical ramifications are coupled with the need for justice in war as well as in other dealings under the New Covenant. Once again, Islam has many passages dealing with the preservation of the followers of the prophet. What it is missing is the dispensation that occurs under the New Covenant. Islam is, in effect, still operating according to the Old Covenant -- and that, outside of the context of authentic revelatory tradition.
 
The LORD is a man of war.
 
Ok, so this verse (Ex 15: 3) comes from the Song of Moses, which poetically praises God for delivering the Israelites from Egypt. I feel that the proper interpretation of this particular text is best expressed in the Septuagint. The author is using the traditional English derived from the Masoretic, which was a compilation of various earlier Hebrew manuscripts which didn't exert any substantial influence on Christianity until the fourth century -- when they did so, very gradually and only in the West, through the work of St. Jerome. The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament used by the early Christian Church. In my translation, derived from the Septuagint, I have it thus:
 
"The Lord brings wars to nothing; the Lord is his name." [Ex 15: 3]
 
So I decided to take a stab at this -- even though my Greek leaves something to be desired -- with the aid of a lexicon. The original Greek, from the Septuagint is "kurios suntribōn polemous kurios onoma autō", which is indeed more literally translated in the Septuagint quotation above. The word "suntribōn", in the passage, refers to overcoming or bringing something to nothing. The point of the excerpt, thus, is that war is no obstacle to the Lord, that despite seemingly overwhelming odds the people of the Lord have triumphed. I am confident of the context thus established, but if anyone with a better knowledge of Greek would care to explain further, I'd love to read it. Anyway, there are certainly a plethora of examples in the Koran where Allah is said to fight with, for, and through those who serve him, so I don't think this particular quotation serves the author's stated point.
 

He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

(Note: this means Christians have to kill four billion people alive today).

Quite a silly conclusion to draw, and I'm sure everyone can see why. There is no command incumbent upon Christians living under the New Covenant to exact retribution according to the Old. Anyway, this excerpt (Ex 22: 20) is part of a great number of laws which are no longer applicable under the New Covenant. We shall deal with the author's misunderstanding as to the purpose of the law, as well as his mistaken belief that it is still applicable below.
 
O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them.
 
This excerpt (Pslam 9: 6) is a record of God's support of the people of Israel. The Psalm itself is well worth reading, for it is a prophecy of the eventual reign of the Son. It didn't really serve the author's point -- it is a simple record, with no command either explicit or implicit -- so there was no need to clarify anything. Still, I thought it would be neat to put it in context anyway. Smile
 
At this point we have addressed the essence of the author's misunderstanding and distortion of the Old Testament. The other quotes from the Old Testament may be dismissed for the reasons cited above. Now, let us examine his even more problematic failure to understand the quotes he cited from the New Testament:
 

The New Testament upholds the old:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

It does not contradict the crimes of the old; it reaffirms them.

What an absurd conclusion to draw -- and one that demonstrates that the author did not examine in any great depth the quote that he, himself, cited (Matt 5: 17). Christ came to fulfill the law. Having done that, we may achieve fulfillment, through communion with him, of that which we could not fulfill if left to our own devices. Once again, the Law is a tutor to lead us to Christ. All of the early Christian writers support this interpretation of the Law.
 
This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Christian exegesis is the heart of the author's untenable conclusions. More interestingly, this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the relation between the Old Covenant and the New is at the heart of the foundation of Islam, but more on this below.
 

It does not contradict the crimes of the old; it reaffirms them.

It does this not just in general, but explicitly:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
 
The mention of a "sword" in Matt 10: 34 may be understood in two ways, neither of which even begin to suggest that Christians should commit violence. It may be understood 1) as an acknowledgment that there is evil in the world and that the Incarnation of God within the world necessitates a battle with that evil; and 2) as a warning to the disciples that they will be met with violence in the preaching of the Gospel. Once again, all the early Christians are in agreement on this point.
 
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
 
Well, first we should note that this passage (Luke 14: 26) doesn't even appear to sanction violence, and so does not serve the author's stated purpose.
 
Still, this passage is oft misunderstood, so a linguistic analysis is merited. The greek word "misei" in this passage is often translated into English as "hate", but this does not do justice to the actual meaning of the term. The definition "to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard" is much more reflective of the usage of the term in Christ's era. Thus, the message of the passage is that we are not to incline ourselves toward anything above Christ -- we are to disregard those worldly bonds that would incline us away from service to him.
 
Anyway, on to the author's final statement regarding the New Testament:
 
It must be admitted that the New Testament does not have any specific commands to commit massacres, but that is simply because Christians at that time had no political or military power. As soon as they achieved some, 1700 years of conquest and prosecution resulted.
 
Of course the New Testament "does not have any specific commands to commit massacres," but we have also shown that there is nothing from the Old Testament that would make it incumbent upon Christians to do violence. Thus, we may dismiss the author's criticism of Christianity's supposed "inherent violence." That so-called Christians have, themselves, distorted the Christian message and done violence, supposedly in the name of Christ, is true. It is as essential that all Christian's acknowledge and oppose this violence as it is that Muslims do the same within their religious tradition. That said, let us examine the author's claim that Islam is inherently more inclined toward peace than Christianity:
 

Proof of the Peaceful Islamic Faith
In contrast, we know Islam is a religion of peace. To quote the Quran, English translation:

Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). 49:13

Seest thou not that we have set the evil ones on against the unbelievers to incite them with fury? So make no haste against them, for we but count out to them a (limited) number (of days). 19:83,84

(God has knowledge) of the (Prophets) cry, O my Lord! Truly these are a people who will not believe! But turn away from them, and say, Peace! 43:88,89

Repel evil with that which is best. 23:96

You can clearly see that Islam teaches that we should be at peace with those who do not accept Allahs teachings.

Ah, but there are also other quotes, which both reflect the very same view of violence that is present in the Old Covenant, and also provide a series of troubling implications for the modern interpretation of Islam as a religion that is inherently peaceful. We shall present a few of these excerpts along with a brief commentary -- simply to demonstrate the untenable and hypocritical nature of the article -- and then analyze one in depth in order to demonstrate the key difference between the understandings of violence which exist in Christianity and Islam.
 
Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is disliked by you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows while you know not. [2: 216]
 
So, fighting is commanded by Allah, though the Muslims to whom this verse is addressed are reluctant.
 
And Allah certainly made good His promise to you when you slew them by His permission, until you became weak-hearted and disputed about the affair and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you loved. Of you were some who desired this world, and of you were some who desired the Hereafter. Then he turned you away from them that He might try you; and He has indeed pardoned you. And Allah is Gracious to the believers. [3: 152]
 
Here Muslims -- specifically Archers at Uhud -- were commanded to maintain their position and destroy their enemies, but they turned aside, out of a desire for earthly pleasure or fear, and were rebuked.
 
Fight then in Allah's way -- thou art not responsible except for thyself; and urge on the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve. And Allah is stronger in prowess and stronger to give exemplary punishment. [4: 84]
 
Once again, Muslims are encouraged to fight for Allah.
 
So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [9: 5]
 
So idolaters -- specifically those who have repudiated a previous agreement with the Muslims -- are to be slain unless they repent and return to the fold.
 
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9: 29]
 
So, according to the Koran, until they acknowledge their submission, Jews and Christians are to be slain.
 
Though the passages above completely refute the author's nonsense, we have still not completely discerned where the difference between interpretations of violence in Islam and Christianity lies. For this purpose, we shall address the necessity of reading these texts in context, and we shall provide a brief historical analysis; the following verse provides us with the perfect opportunity:
 
When thy Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So smite above the necks and smite every finger-tip of them. This is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger -- then surely Allah is severe in requiting. [8: 12-13]
 
Maulana Muhammad Ali, who translated the text and provided apologetic notes designed for a western audience writes:
 
The last sentence is apparently addressed to the fighting believers. Smiting above the necks is either the same as smiting the necks, or it signifies the striking of the heads, because what is above the neck is the head. And the striking of the finger-tips indicates the stiking of hands which held weapons to kill the Muslims. The two phrases respectively signify the killing of the enemy and disabling him so as to render him unfit for taking further part in the fighting.
 
This is particularly damning to the author's case that Islam is inherently more peaceful than either Christianity or the Old Covenant Judaism which he mistakenly identifies as Christianity. The Koran goes on to state:
 
So you slew them not but Allah slew them, and thou smotest not when thou didst smite (the enemy), but Allah smote (him), and that He might confer upon the believers a benefit from Himself. Surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing. [8: 17]
 
One is reminded of the author's revulsion with the quote "The Lord is a man of war." LOL
 
Still, these writings dealt with the specific aftermath of the battle of Badr, and must be read in the context of the necessites of war, much like the references to practices which the Hebrews carried out in order to preserve their nation. The difference for the purposes of understanding the article, however, is that the Muslim interpretation of the Koran was taking place in medias res, whereas the Christian interpretation of the Scriptures delivered under the Old Covenant was developed by interpreting the Old Testament within the context established by the Incarnation of the theanthropos, and the fulfillment of the Covenant.
 
 
 
A Brief Contextual Summary:
 
The violence recorded in the Old Testament, in addition to its immediate and practical significance, acquired an instructional quality which became apparent after the Incarnation of Christ. Thus, it is impossible to ascribe any Old Testament commands to commit violence to Christianity. Christianity takes the Old Testament as a shadow of the revelation that is Christ. Once Christ became incarnate, everything revealed yet understood imperfectly under the Old Covenant became clear, and deriving real truth from the revelations of the Old Covenant became possible due to the establishment of the proper context. Christians are required to read the Old Covenant as a prelude to the New, and thus the actions of the Old Covenant are interpreted according to the new dispensation. The Koran purports to be the final revelation, and thus the commands to subdue the nonbelievers lend themselves to modern, violent interpretations. Koranic interpretations of violence -- developed out of practical necessity and without the promise of a new dispensation -- must be examined simply at face value. In essence, then, Islam is a throwback to an Old Covenant mindset -- the preservation of a chosen people -- which is carried out outside of the context of the authentic "Abrahamic" revelatory tradition. In this sense it reflects the contentious atmosphere of the sixth century, in which it was born, far more than it represents any timeless revelatory truths.
 
 
 
Some Final Historical Thoughts and a Comparison
 
While Christianity has often been distorted by those who sought to do violence in the name of Christ, this violence is not inherent in the religion itself -- that is to say, at least, that it has not been there since the beginning. Christians are repeatedly told to bear the burdens and trials of the world with longsuffering and charity. It is not until a couple of centuries after the death of Christ that violence worked its way into Christianity in any institutional sense. When it finally did, it was a response -- and an unjustified response, at that -- to the depredations of the pagan persecutions. Anyone who reads the account of Stephen the Protomartyr's defense in Acts, the letters of the Apostle Paul and Ignatius of Antioch, or any other number of early Christian sources is struck by their resignation to accepting martyrdom peacefully in the name of Christ. There was never any talk of fighting back against the oppressors in any worldly sense, precisely because the world is ephemeral.
 
This is not the case with Islam. Because of the violent atmosphere in which it was incubated, as well as the close proximity of its early adherents to the semi-religious conflict that came to be known as the last Romano-Persian War, it adopted a very practical and warlike course. Muhammad, himself, adopted warlike practices which had been unheard of on the Arab peninsula before the birth of Islam. Because the early Muslims were so outnumbered, the adoption of some concept of "holy war" -- probably adapted from the conflict then raging to the North -- became a necessity to ensure the survival of Islam. After the Battle of Badr, for example, Muhammad actually executed a number of Meccan captives, which was not common practice in Arab warfare to that point. The point is that though the Muslims adopted these practices to ensure their survival -- like the Hebrews under the Old Covenant -- there is no promise of a new covenant to mediate the old; there is only a set of general rules for the practice of warfare.
 
The Old Testament accounts of the violence practiced by the Jews to ensure their survival serve a modern purpose in three ways: 1) they provide a record of the survival of the nation of Israel against seemingly overwhelming odds; 2) they foreshadow the New Covenant, and the Incarnation of Christ; and 3) they provide, allegorically, a broad spectrum of general catechetical symbolism. Accounts of and commands to commit violence in the Koran may be justified under the first of the above principles -- that is, they provide a historical record of the attempts of the self-proclaimed followers of God to survive. Beyond this, however, they find no justification, or at least they cannot be reconciled with the portrayal of Islam as a religion that is inherently more peaceful than Christianity -- the very first Muslims certainly did not feel that their religion was inherently peaceful. It should always be remembered that the meteoric rise of Islam was a direct result of the "lesser jihad", as well as the repressive policies Muslims are instructed to undertake to "enlighten" the world. Furthermore, if we are to read the Koran as a book with significance for the modern era, as well as a historical record, I do not believe it can be reconciled with the image of Islam as a religion that is inherently peaceful. At very best, it is a religion which is no more or less warlike than the world as it was before Islam. We have seen, however, that Christianity is inherently peaceful, in an almost otherworldly way.
 
Anyway, food for thought. I'm interested to see what kind of reaction I get here. Although the topic, itself, is somewhat incendiary, there is no particular reason that it cannot be discussed rationally. I have striven to do so, as I trust you will see, and eagerly await a response in kind.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 03-Apr-2008 at 04:58
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 06:19
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9: 29]

So, according to the Koran, until they acknowledge their submission, Jews and Christians are to be slain.

With all respect Ako that is a misqoute. The Qu'ran allows for war in the defensive sense, not in the offensive
You have to actually post the qoute in context of the whole surah which allows for defense not offense


Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged, and God is indeed able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is God"-for had it not been for God's repelling some men by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, in which the name of God is much mentioned, would certainly have been destroyed. Verily God helps those that help Him - lo! God is Strong, Almighty - those who, if they are given power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor-due and enjoin what is good and forbid iniquity. Quran 22:39-41


Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor. Quran 2:190

And if they incline to peace, do so and put your trust in God. Even if they intend to deceive you, remember that God is sufficient for you. Quran 8:61-2
Co-operate in what is good and pious and do not co-operate in what is sinful and aggression. Quran 5:2


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 06:21
Here is further context on that verse.


2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0603-2947&p=1


Further commentary on this.
Back to Top
Super Goat (^_^) View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 22-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 180
  Quote Super Goat (^_^) Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 07:19
After the Battle of Badr, for example, Muhammad actually executed a number of Meccan captives,

I thought one of the uniqe aspects of Badr is that maccan captives were spared?
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 13:56
Oh man, you;ve gone and done it now Ako.  I am already in the middle of one thesis without having to reply to this...
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:42
Originally posted by Zagros

Oh man, you;ve gone and done it now Ako.  I am already in the middle of one thesis without having to reply to this...
 
I know exactly how you feel. Yesterday, I sat helplessly at my keyboard while my reply to the original article grew, and grew, and grew. After realizing that it merited it's own thread, I made the fateful decision to start this topic which will, undoubtedly, take up a great deal of my time. Shall we never be free from this time-devouring forum? LOL
 
That said, at least this promises to expand my understanding of the Koran, so there is something worthwhile to be gained.
 
Originally posted by Super Goat (^_^)

I thought one of the uniqe aspects of Badr is that maccan captives were spared?
 
Hm. I have one source which states that many captive Meccans were executed in contravention of traditional policies of warfare in the Arabian peninsula. It does seem to be the case that Muhammad desecrated a well by burying dead Meccan soldiers in it, but these had been killed in battle, not taken prisoner. Maulana Muhammad Ali states that this was not the case, and that ayah 8: 67 is proof of this. If anyone is willing to sort this out, I would appreciate it. It is peripheral to the issue, but interesting nonetheless. Smile
 
Originally posted by es_bih

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9: 29]

So, according to the Koran, until they acknowledge their submission, Jews and Christians are to be slain.

With all respect Ako that is a misqoute. The Qu'ran allows for war in the defensive sense, not in the offensive
You have to actually post the qoute in context of the whole surah which allows for defense not offense
 
I certainly believe in eatablishing context, as noted above. The surah deals with the triumph of Islam in Arabia, and an introduction to the expansion of the war into surrounding territories. My contention is that "war in the defensive sense" is so ill defined, so broadly understood, that it loses all meaning. Muhammad, himself, interpreted the term rather broadly, and his successors were to do the same. The Muslims may, on account of the killing of their envoy, find some justification for the use of the term "defensive war" in speaking of their attack on the Ghassanids (a Christian Byzantine client tribe), although their envoy had -- as had so many early Muslim envoys -- been sent deliberately for the purposes of provocation (by demanding that the Ghassanids reject Christianity and submit to Islam). How are they to find justification for the use of the same term in their wars against the Roman Empire or Sassanid Persia, both of which were sparked by Muslim raids? If we are to use the term "defensive war" in any meaningful sense, we must conclude that either a) Abu Bakr was disobeying the commands to practice only defensive warfare found in the Koran, or b) the commands to practice only defensive warfare laid out in the Koran were laid out for specific circumstances, and were no longer applicable during the Byzantine and Persian conquests (thus undermining these parts of the Koran in terms of their ability to convey a timeless message). I fail to see any other possibility.
 
And as for ayah 9: 29, whether the Muslims were acting defensively or not this does represent compulsion in matters of religion. The verse refers to the Jews and the Roman Empire, but even if it referred to an aggressive power, it advocates repressive measures taken out against a conquered people who refuse to follow a faith. Once again, if we are to understand the term "compulsion" in any meaningful sense, this is it.
 
My broader point runs thus: Islam, unlike Christianity, easily lends itself to violence, even if it is not inherently violent. Though the early Muslims undoubtedly fought wars of aggression, these could be dismissed -- and, indeed, must be dismissed if one wishes to uphold the integrity of the Koran's injunction against aggressive war -- as transgressions against the Koran and Islam. Still, there are certain advantages to the whole system, which were exploited by Muhammad and his successors. By taking provocative actions short of open war, which were designed to goad their enemies into war -- such as the sending of envoys demanding submission -- the early Muslims attempted to portray themselves as the aggrieved party in their early wars of conquest. That this is hardly an inclination towards an inherently peaceful doctrine is borne out by the history of the period.
 
The establishment of the Dar al-Islam was achieved through wars of conquest, quite in contrast to the establishment of the Kingdom of God that is His Church. The meteoric rise of Islam was a product of force of arms, while the meteoric rise of Christianity across the Roman Empire was due to the forebearance of the early Christian martyrs. Violence did not even creep into Christianity in any pervasive sense until a couple centuries after the death of the Apostles, and only after it had been established as the religion of the state was war ever used -- and unjustly, at that  -- to spread Christianity. Whereas most of the soldier-martyrs of Islam died in the battles by which she gained mastery over much of the world, most of the great soldier-martyrs of Christianity went peacefully to their deaths at the hands of their Roman persecutors, and their blood, peacefully shed, provided the sacred substrate out of which the Christian Church was to emerge.
 
The basic tenets of Christianity can, in no way, be read as anything other than a condemnation of the violence and evil that exists in the world. Islam, however, contains a very worldly set of precepts for the undertaking of war that is reminiscent of the techniques practiced by the Jews of the Old Covenant. Thus, while neither religion may be said to be "inherently violent", Christianity is certainly more inherently peaceful.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:50
Cleric condemns suicide attacks

Some groups such as Hamas use suicide bombings as a tactic
One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.

Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.

He called on Muslim nations to open themselves to dialogue with the West saying Islamic nations should "wholeheartedly open our arms to the people who want peace with us".

     
The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky
Sheikh Tantawi

Scholars debate future of Islam
"I do not subscribe to the idea of a clash among civilizations. People of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity," he added.

Sheikh Tantawi was addressing a gathering of nearly 800 scholars and representatives from various non-governmental organisations.

"Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky," Sheikh Tantawi said.

Book ban

Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified.

His comments echoed those by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammed who said, at the opening of the conference on Thursday, that salvation could not be achieved through the killing of innocent people.

Worried that Islam's image is being damaged by terrorists who have hijacked the religion for their own ends, delegates also considered banning books which fuel extremism.

"We have to block them from channels that are meant to spread Islam," Sheik Husam Qaraqirah, head of an Islamic charity association in Lebanon, said.

"Their books must be banned and lifted off the shelves of mosques, schools, universities and libraries," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3059365.stm



Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:57
I think your logic is flawed, its rather a "my religion is more peaceful than yours" logic.

Compulsion within islam is a nonentity. If you are to force a person to accept Islam, that conversion is nullified, as is your intent, and your deed is a sin that you have to answer for. The only conversion that is authentic when a person takes upon conversion for himself.


The Qu'ran states that the Prophet himself can preach Islam, or God's Word to all, but those who reject he should leave alone and accept their noninterest.

Its funny to me how the ones that "misinterpret" Christianity are credible "misinterpretators" because Christianity is anti-violence, but the extremists in Islam are not "misinterpreting" but rather the Qu'ran allows them to commit violence. Ako you don't seem like you have spent enough time reading up on this issue, but googled up a few examples.


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 16:59
Memo to Osama bin Laden
"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any Islamic state established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003

This is an American Muslims response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

Mr. Binladen,

In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent.

I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms.

1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79).

2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36).

3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13)

4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).

I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Bin Laden and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship.

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently un-Islamic it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allahs 99 names in the Quran is Al Salam which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.

Yes many innocent people lost their lives in Americas war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice!

Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.

Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrations proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other.

Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Bin Laden, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence.

When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.

Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any Islamic state established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, Patriot Act not withstanding, is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.

Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you.

We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77).

I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussein to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them.

Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI
Association of Muslim Social Scientists
Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/khan09.htm
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:02
Do not equate Islam with the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a state that existed in a time and place with precepts and prerogatives, it was inspired by Islam, the vast majority within Arabia were Muslim, most participants were Muslim, however many were NOT MUslim. The conquest was a tribal affair of a rising Empire, where Christian members of the Arab tribes pursued the same policy with their Muslim and Jewish, etc tribesmen.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:10
Originally posted by es_bih

I think your logic is flawed, its rather a "my religion is more peaceful than yours" logic.

Compulsion within islam is a nonentity. If you are to force a person to accept Islam, that conversion is nullified, as is your intent, and your deed is a sin that you have to answer for. The only conversion that is authentic when a person takes upon conversion for himself.


The Qu'ran states that the Prophet himself can preach Islam, or God's Word to all, but those who reject he should leave alone and accept their noninterest.

Its funny to me how the ones that "misinterpret" Christianity are credible "misinterpretators" because Christianity is anti-violence, but the extremists in Islam are not "misinterpreting" but rather the Qu'ran allows them to commit violence. Ako you don't seem like you have spent enough time reading up on this issue, but googled up a few examples.
 
Hm. I see the accusation that I have not "spent enought time reading up on this issue, but googled up a few examples"; I see the blanket dismissal of the compulsive examples of Islam; what I do not see is any response to any of the specific historical and textual issues raised. Care to have another go at it? Wink
 
Do not equate Islam with the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a state that existed in a time and place with precepts and prerogatives, it was inspired by Islam, the vast majority within Arabia were Muslim, most participants were Muslim, however many were NOT MUslim. The conquest was a tribal affair of a rising Empire, where Christian members of the Arab tribes pursued the same policy with their Muslim and Jewish, etc tribesmen.
 
Well, what should we equate Islam with? The actions of the armies of Muhammad? The actions of his immediate successors? If we are to establish the context which you profess to desire, how are we to do this? I still await an answer.
 
As for your examples of Muslims calling for peace, I welcome them, but they are peripheral to the issue at hand. My point, once again, is not that Islam is inherently violent, nor that all Muslims approve of violence. My point is that Islam, since its inception, has had a specific code that deals with "defensive war" in a way so broadly defined as to justify a wide range of justifications for war. I really would appreciate it if you responded to my last post; after all, I did spend a fair amount of time writing it. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 03-Apr-2008 at 17:10
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:13
Sure, then we will equate the Crusades as the army of the Christian Jesus I guess. I did provide you enough detail actually.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:19
Originally posted by es_bih

Sure, then we will equate the Crusades as the army of the Christian Jesus I guess. I did provide you enough detail actually.
 
Item: I have already addressed the issue of later violence in Christianity. I would suggest that you go back and read my first post, as well as my second. Whereas Christianity was peaceful in its early years and was only later distorted by those who sought to do violence, violence has been a part of Islam from its inception. If you would like to address this distinction, feel free to do so. Please do not simply repeat popular criticisms which have already been addressed.
 
Item: You did not provide me enough detail, actually. Wink The first item contains a perfect example of why this is not the case.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:36
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.

4:79, 80 (Say to everyone of them,) 'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have (O Prophet) sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 (Noah to his people) He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If 1 act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?

17:53, 54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you (Unto men O Prophet) with power to determine their Faith.

21:107 to 109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour (of Judgment) is near or far."

22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites (of prayer) which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord (since that is the main objective of religion). You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, (then say,) `God best knows (the value of) what you do."

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the (task of spreading) Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every (false) religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.

36:16, 17 (Three Messengers to their people)Said (the Messengers), "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

67:25, 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 19:39
es.bih,
 
Closer.
 
I'm beginning to see that part -- a large part, in fact -- of the reason your responses are not what I had envisioned is because I didn't precisely lay out what I envisioned for this thread. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
 
The quotes from the Koran which you have cited do, themselves, speak to the point at issue. There are certainly a variety of quotes in the Koran some of which deal with living in peace with neighbors, some of which advocate -- or at least appear to advocate -- the subjugation of nonbelieving neighbors. What I am looking for is not so much a litany of quotes dealing with the issue of war. What I am looking for is an analysis of the historical context of each, as well as a detailed explanation of the view of Islam with regard to violence against unbelievers.
 
Specifically I would like you to address issues such as the apparent inconsistency between the ayah which states that "There is no compulsion in religion," and the one that advocates repressive measures against people of the book who refuse to submit. I would also be interested to see a bit of historical and exegetical analysis of the various quotes in the Koran dealing with violence -- look to my analysis of the Bible quotes from the article as an example.
 
If you get the chance, you may want to reread my original post, as well as the post that followed now that you have read my belated explanation, and respond to some of my questions in the context set out here. Once again, I am sorry for being unclear at the beginning of the thread, the which has gotten us a bit off-topic; it was such a long post, and I failed to properly establish a context. Anyway, I look forward to reading your reply.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 03:41
Muslims undoubtedly fought wars of aggression

While today many Muslims are peaceful their origins are not unviolent. Currents events also demonstrates this amongst the Islamacist.

THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT


Paul Stenhouse PhD



CURRENT WISDOM would have it that five centuries of peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians were brought to an end by political events and an imperial-papal power play, that was to lead to centuries-long series of so-called holy-wars that pitted Christendom against Islam, and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and mistrust.1

A school textbook, Humanities Alive,2 for Year 8 students in the Australian State of Victoria, carries the anti-Christian/anti Western argument further: 'Those who destroyed the World
Trade Centre are regarded as terrorists... Might it be fair to say that the Crusaders who attacked the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were also terrorists?'3



Muhammad died in Medina on June 8, 632 AD. The first of the eight Crusades to free the Holy Places in Palestine from Muslim control, and offer safe passage to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims, was called only in 1095. At the risk of sounding pedantic, the period in question is not five centuries, but fourhundred and sixty-three years; and those years were not characterized by peaceful coexistence. For the Christian states bordering the Mediterranean, it was a four-hundred and sixty-three year period of regular, disorganized [and occasionally organized] bloody incursions by Muslimmainly Arab and Berber-land and sea forces. These came intent on booty-gold, silver, precious stones and slaves-on destroying churches, convents and shrines of the infidels, and on the spread of politico-religious Islam throughout Europe from their bases in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic.

At the time of Muhammads death there were flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Arabia, and throughout the major centres of the Persian Empire. The whole of the Mediterranean world on its European, Asian and African sides, was predominantly Christian. It had taken only a few years for Muslim tribesmen from Arabia, inspired by Muhammads revelations and example, to invade the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire whose emperors devoted more time to religious disputation than to defending their empire. In 633 Mesopotamia fell. After a few years the entire Persian Empire fell to the marauding Arab tribesmen who drove the young Persian emperor Yazdagird into the farthest reaches of his empire, to Sogdiana [Uzbekistan], where he was eventually murdered by his Tartar bodyguard in a millers hut.

One thousand years of Hellenic civilization ends.
Damascus fell in 635, and Jerusalem capitulated five years after Muhammad died, in February 638. The fall of Alexandria in 643 sounded the death knell of more than thousand years of Hellenic civilization that once enriched the whole of the Near East with its scholarship and culture. Henri Daniel-Rops claims that from the point of view of the history of civilization, Alexandrias fall was as significant as the fall of Constantinople to the Turks eight-hundred years later.3 Cyprus fell in 648-9 and Rhodes in 653. By 698 the whole of North Africa was lost. Less than eighty years after Muhammads death, in 711, Muslims from Tangiers poured across the 13 km-wide strait of Gibraltar into Spain. By 721 this motley Arab-Berber horde had overthrown the ruling Catholic Visigoths and, with the fall of Saragossa, set their sights on southern France.

By 720 Narbonne had fallen. Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down by Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Ghafiqi in early spring 732. A basilica outside the walls of Poitiers was razed, and Abd al-Rahman headed for Tours which held the body of St Martin [who died in 397] apostle and patron saint of the Franks. He was to be defeated and killed by Charles Martel and his Frankish army on a Saturday in October, 732, one hundred years after Muhammads death, on the road from Poitiers to Tours a defeat that was hailed by Gibbon and others as decisive in turning back the Muslim tide from Europe.

Attacks on France, however, continued, and in 734 Avignon was captured by an Arab force. Lyons was sacked in 743. It wasnt until 759 that the Arabs were driven out of Narbonne. Marseilles was plundered by them in 838. Muslim incursions into Italy had been a feature of life from the early 800s. The islands of Ponza [off Gaeta] and Ischia [off Naples] had been plundered, and then, in 813 Civitavecchia, the port of Rome, whose harbour had been constructed by Trajan, was sacked by the Arabs.

In 826 the island of Crete fell to Muslim forces which retained it as their base until 961. From around 827 they then began nibbling at Sicily. They captured Messina and controlled the Strait of Messina by 842, and finally took the whole island in 859, after Enna fell to them.

In 836 the Neapolitans self-interestedly invited the Muslim forces to help them against the Lombards and set the stage for more than a century of Muslims raids along the Adriatic, involving the destruction of Ancona, and Muslim progress as far as the mouth of the Po. Saracen Towers south of Naples, built in the ninth century to warn locals of the approach of Arab fleets from Sicily and Africa still charm visitors to the Neapolitan coast.

Bari, now home to the relics of St Nicholas of Myra, the original Father Christmas, fell to Khalfun, a Berber chieftan, by another act of treachery in 840. From 853-871 the notorious Muslim brigand al-Mufarraj bin Sallam, and his successor, another Berber named Sawdan, controlled all the coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria, and terrorized Southern Italy. They even plundered the Abbey of St Michael on Mt Gargano. They claimed the title of Emir, and independence of the Emir in Palermo.

Naples herself had to beat off a Muslim attack in 837. But in 846 Rome was not to be so fortunate. On August 23rd 846, Arab squadrons from Africa arrived at Ostia, at the Tibers mouth. There were 73 ships. The Saracen force numbered 11,000 warriors, with 500 horses.4

The most revered Christian shrines outside the Holy Land, the tombs of Sts Peter and Paul, were desecrated and their respective Basilicas were sacked, as was the Lateran Basilica along with numerous other churches and public buildings. The very altar over the body of St Peter was smashed to pieces, and the great door of St Peters Basilica was stripped of its silver plates. Romans were desolated and Christendom was shocked at the barbarism of the Muslim forces.

Three years later Pope Leo IV [847-855] formed an alliance with Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta, and when a Saracen fleet again appeared at the mouth of the Tiber in 849, the Papal fleet joined forces with its allies and they repelled the Muslim fleet which turned, and ran into a violent wind-storm that destroyed it, like Pharaohs army long before

Survivors were brought to Rome and put to work helping to build the Leonine Wall around the Vatican. Twelve feet thick, nearly forty feet in height and defended by fortyfour towers, most of this wall, and two of the round towers, can be seen still by visitors to the Vatican. These defensive walls were finished and blessed by Pope Leo IV in 852.

Taranto in Apulia was conquered by Arab forces in 846. They held it until 880. In 870 Malta was captured by the Muslims. In 871 Bari, the Saracens capital on mainland Italy, was recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II, who in 872 was to defeat a Saracen fleet off Capua.6

At this point in our examination of the peaceful coexistence, which is made much of by Muslim apologists, we are still two-hundred and twenty-three years away from the calling of the first Crusade. Perhaps readers may better understand, now, why Emperor Louis II, grandson of Charlemagne was absolutely convinced, in the ninth century, of the need for a Crusade. He quite sure that Islam must be driven right out of Europe.5 But still there was no call for a Crusade.

I havent spoken of Muslim attacks against the Byzantine Empire even though these, too, played a part in setting the stage for the Crusades. The much vaunted military might and political power of the Eastern Roman Empire carried with it responsibility for protecting the West from Muslim invaders. This it generally failed to do.

Constantinople had been attacked in 673, and then for the next five years Arab armies and fleets attempted unsuccessfully to break through the Byzantine defences. Greek Fire, that mysterious substance that burned on water, destroyed the Muslim fleets and won the day for the defenders.

Then, in 717, the Muslims returned to the attack, emboldened by their successes in Spain. Fate intervened, and like Charles Martel and his Franks at Poitiers in 732, emperor Leo the Isaurian [717-740] turned back the Muslim tide. Constantinople was saved for a time. Leo, for all his military skills, was a usurper, and an iconoclast. Despite defeating the Muslims, his policies ultimately further weakened both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires.

In 870, when Bernard the Wise from Brittany wanted to visit Palestine he had to obtain a laissez-passer from Muslim authorities in Bari, on the Adriatic Coast.6 In 873 the Muslim forces devastated Calabria in southern Italy to the point that it was reduced to the state in which it had been left by the Great Flood and the Saracens expressed their intention of destroying Rome, the city of the Petrulus senex, the ineffective old man, Peter.7
In 874 Pope John VIII did all he could to dissuade Amalfi, Naples, Benevento, Capua, Salerno, and Spoleto from forming a pragmatic alliance with the Saracens. Amalfi, Capua and Salerno alone heeded his pleas for Christian solidarity.

From the close of 876 Pope John VIII had been sending letters in all directions to obtain help against the Arab forces which were devastating southern Italy and even threatening Rome itself. He sought the aid of Duke Bosone of Milan whom Emperor Charles the Bald had appointed his legate in Northern Italy to no avail. He wrote for cavalry horses to Alfonso III, king of Galicia in Spain; and for warships to the Byzantines, and from 876 until May 877 he sent numerous letters to the Frankish Emperor begging him to aid the Catholics in Italy. The Emperor proved to be a frail reed, and in 879, upon his death, the Duke of Spoleto turned on the Pope. John VIII, unable to cope with both Saracens and Spoleto, at once, had to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses annually to the Arabs. A silver mancus was worth roughly AUD$25. This situation lasted for two years.

In 881 the Muslim allies of the Neapolitans captured the fortress on the Garigliano [the ancent Liris] 14 km east of Gaeta close to Anzio, just north of Naples, and plundered the surrounding countryside with impunity for forty years. Returning from a synod at Ravenna [February 882] Pope John VIII found, as he put it, that the Saracens are as much at home in Fundi [close to Rome, in Latium] and Terracina [80 km SE of Rome] as in Africa. Though we were seriously unwell, wrote the Pope, we went forth to battle with our forces, captured eighteen of the enemys ships, and slew a great many of their men.8 Six hundred captives of the Saracens were liberated.

Syracuse fell to the Muslims in 878 after a nine-month siege from which few escaped alive. The Byzantine city was pillaged and destroyed. Its collapse freed-up more numerous bands of marauding Muslims to harry the Italian towns and cities. 880 saw victory over Saracen forces at Naples by Byzantine Commanders and also the arrival in waters off Rome of warships sent by the emperor Basil to give the Pope the means of defending the territory of St Peter.9

Meanwhile, the Saracens had turned their attention again to southern France and northern Italy. They had taken Avignon in 734 and Marseilles in 838 and they were ravaging Provence and North Italy from their bases in the Alps. The most important of these bases was Fraxineto or Frjus, not far from Toulon, which they captured in 889. They were displaced temporarily from their base in 942 by Hugh of Arles who had a Byzantine fleet harry them from the sea, while he attacked from land. Horace Mann comments10 that it is symptomatic of the kind of pragmatic leaders who controlled the destiny of Europe at that time, that instead of wiping out this bloodthirsty band of Muslim invaders, Hugh allowed them to stay where they were on condition that they did all they could to prevent his rival as king of Italy, Berengerius Marquis of Ivrea, from returning to Italy.

The latter managed to return from Germany to Italy in 945, and the Muslims were not to be expelled completely from their lair until 972 almost one-hundred years after capturing Fraxineto by a league of Italian and Provenal princes.

In the meantime they infested the passes of the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. In 921 a large band of Englishmen, on pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles in Rome, were crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps.11

At this point in the alleged peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians, we are still one-hundred and seventy-four years away from the calling of the first Crusade to free the Holy Places.

Meanwhile, Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece, in 902, and Thessalonica the second city of the Byzantine Empire fell to them in 904. Muslim armies took Hysela in Carsiana in 887, and Amasia, the metropolitan city of Pontus in Asia Minor. The bishop of Amasia named Malecenus wanted to ransom those of his people who had
been captured but knew that the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI would not help; so he appealed to Pope Benedict IV in Rome.

The Pope received him kindly, and gave him an encyclical letter addressed to all bishops, abbots, counts and judges and to all orthodox professors of the Christian faith asking them to show Malacenus every consideration, and to see him safely from one city to the next.

In 905 Pope Sergius III helped Bishop Hildebrand of Silva Candida restore some of the damage done to his See by the ravaging Saracens who had devastated the Church of Silva Candida in the neighbourhood of Rome.

In 915 Pope John X successfully created a Christian League with the help of Byzantine Admiral Picingli and his fleet. Even the bickering princes of southern Italy joined forces against the Saracens, along with King Berengarius and his armies from North Italy. The enemy were holed-up in their fortresses on the Garigliano near Gaeta, north of Naples.
After three months of blockade, they tried to fight their way out only to be repelled by a victorious Christian force.

In 934 the Fatimid imam al-Kaim planned an audacious invasion of Liguria led by Yakub bin Ishaq. The latter attacked Genoa that year, and took it in 935. It wasnt until 972 that Duke William of Provence succeeded in driving the Saracens finally from the fastnesses of Faxineto. In 976 the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt had sent fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German emperor Otho II, who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces, but in July 982 he was ambushed and his army was almost cut to pieces.

In 977 Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, was expelled from his See by the Muslims. Pope Benedict VII gave him the ancient church of St Alexius on Romes Aventine hill, and he founded a monastery there and placed it under Benedictine rule, with himself its first abbot.

The pontificate of Pope John XVIII [1003-1009] was marred by famine and plague and by marauding bands of Saracens who plundered the Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia.

By 1010 they had seized Cosenza in southern Italy. Then Sardinia fell to the Arabs in 1015, led by a certain Abu Hosein Mogehid [thus the Latin Chronicles]. I take this person to be Mujahid bin Abd Allah whom Arab sources credit with the invasion. The Saracen force based on Sardinia, over the next few years, torched Pisa, seized Luna in northern Tuscany, and ravaged the land. Pope Benedict VIII managed to assemble a fleet and challenged the Saracen chief who turned tail and fled to Sardinia, leaving his fleet at the mercy of the papal force which was victorious.

Mujahid bin Abd Allah then sent the Pope a bag of chestnuts and a message that he would arrive in the following summer with as many soldiers as there were nuts in the bag. Benedict accepted the chestnuts and sent back a bag of rice: If your master, he said to the astonished messenger, snt satisfied with the damage he has done to the dowry of the Apostle, let him come again and he will find an armed warrior for every grain of rice.

The Pope did not wait for an answer but carried the war into the enemys territory. He coopted the combined fleets of Pisa and Genoa and they sailed for Sardinia in 1017 only to find Mujahid in the act of crucifying Christians on Sardinia. The Muslim leader fled to Africa, and Sardinia was occupied by the Pisans. Mujahid kept trying to re-take Sardinia until 1050 when he was captured by the Pisans and the island was made over to them by the Pope.

Muslims from Spain sacked Antibes in 1003. They sacked Pisa in 1005 and 1016, and Narbonne in 1020. Sometime around 1025 Pope John XIX granted the pallium [sign of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction] to Archbishop Peter of Gerona in northeast Spain, on condition that he redeemed Christian captives of the Saracens as he had promised the Pope when he had
come on his ad limina visit.

The four-hundred and sixty-three years that elapsed between Muhammads death in 632 and the calling of a Crusade to free the Holy Places in 1095 was not a time of peaceful co-existence between Muslims and European or Byzantine Christians. Nor was it, for Christians living in Muslim-occupied territories. They enjoyed peace only by keeping the lowest possible profile, paying the jizya, or head-tax, and accepting non-person status in lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived.

The new millennium saw the situation go from bad to worse. In 1009 the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, abu-Ali Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The edict of destruction was signed by his Christian secretary ibn-Abdun. The Muslims destroyed the Tomb of Jesus, the Dome and the upper parts of the Church until their demolition was halted by the great mound of debris at their feet. For eleven years Christians were forbidden even to visit the rubble or to pray in the ruins. Shocked by the destruction of Christendoms holiest Shrine, Pope Sergius IV appealed for help to go to Palestine to rebuild it. His appeal fell on deaf ears.

At the beginning of the fifth century, two hundred years before Muhammad appeared, there were seven-hundred Catholic bishops in Africa.12 Two-hundred of them attended the Council of Carthage in 535 AD. By the middle of the 900s there were forty left. By 1050, as a result of peaceful coexistence, there were only five left.

In 1076 there were two.

We learn this from a letter that Pope Gregory VII, Hildebrand, wrote to Cyriacus, Archbishop of Carthage in June 1076. As three bishops are needed for the valid consecration of another bishop Gregory asked him to send a suitable priest to Rome who could be consecrated assistant bishop, so that he [Cyriacus] and Servandus, bishop of Buzea in Mauritania, and the new bishop could consecrate other bishops for the African Catholics.13

Gregory VII, on his deathbed in 1085, dreamt of forming a Christian League against Islam and said, I would rather risk my life to deliver the Holy Places, than govern the Universe.14

It seems to have been the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem in 1076 that finally swung the balance, exhausted the patience of the European Christians, and fulfilled Gregorys wish. Pilgrimage to the Holy Places had became more difficult; a poll-tax was imposed on visitors. Those who dared journey there were harassed, robbed and some even
enslaved.

At the Council of Piacenza summoned by Pope Urban II and held in March 1095, Byzantine delegates emphasized the danger facing Christendom from Muslim expansion, and the hardship facing Eastern Christians until the infidel be driven back.15 They repeated an appeal made by Emperor Alexius to Robert of Flanders asking him to return to the East with some knights to assist the Byzantines in their struggle with the Muslims.

Towards the end of that same year, Urban II, at another Council held at Claremont in France, took up the suggestion, and urged Europes Christians to Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre let each one deny himself and take up the Cross. The Assembly rose to its feet and shouted God wills it.

Muhammad died on June 8, 632 AD.


It had taken four hundred and sixty-three years for Europes Christians to combine their forces and rise up in defence of themselves and of their Faith.


*Reproduced by kind permission of the Reverend Paul Stenhouse

NOTES
1 John Esposito, Islam: the Straight Path, 3rd ed. OUP, 1998, p.58.
2See Civilizing influence of previous wars fought between East and West, The Weekend Australian, March 18-19, 2006.
3 The Church in the Dark Ages, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1959, p.336.
4 Letter from Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany and protector of the Papal territory of Corsica, to Pope Sergius II in Liber Pontificalis, n.xliv, ed. Farnesiana.
5 Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1959, p.472.
6 Quoted Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Cambridge University Press, 1951, vol.i, p.43.
7 See Horace Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, 12 vols Kegan Paul, London, 1906,
vol. iii, p.321.
8 Epistle 334 fragment of a letter to the Emperor.
9 Epistle 296 to the Byzantine Emperor Basil, August 12, 880 AD.
10 Op.cit. vol.4, p.10
11 Flodoard [894-966] Chronique de France 919-966, entry for
921.
12 H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, J,M,Dent and Sons, London, 1959, pp.340, 344.
13 Register of Gregory VII, III, 19.
14H. Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, J.M.Dent and Sons, London, 1957, p.434.
15Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Cambridge University Press, 1951, vol.i, p.105.

Edited by eaglecap - 06-Apr-2008 at 01:40
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2008 at 05:34
Interesting, eaglecap, but not precisely what I am looking for in this thread -- I really need to work on my clarity, eh? LOL Both Christianity and Islam have histories laced with violence and peace. My question -- and consequently the dialogue I wish to start -- centers around a comparative contextual exegetical analysis of the Bible and the Koran. I would like those interested in participating to cite quotes specifically dealing with violence -- not quotes dealing with peace -- and then I would like them to analyze these quotes in a historical and theological context. Sorry for the confusion; sometimes I am absolutely terrible at making myself understood. Comes with being so scatterbrained, I suppose. LOL
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 05-May-2008 at 05:36
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2008 at 07:14
Originally posted by es_bih

4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69).
 
What about those who don't have faith?
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2008 at 07:20
Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by es_bih

4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69).
 
What about those who don't have faith?
 
Let's try not to get further off-topic than we already are. LOL
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2008 at 14:04
OK, Ako. But I must tell you that it seems like religion textbooks and what religion supporters do look like lawyers in a court. Everybody is making an interpretation of the text while nobody can deliver a clear picture of what the Law is. It's an interpretation festival when studying the holy writings.
Regarding violence, I think both religions are similar. None of the books is like a nazi manifest yet they are both confuse, so they can be used to instigate people to violence. Therefore the danger lies in what people make of the religious texts, not in the texts themselves.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.