If it is not appropriate to judge Christianity by those who commit acts of violence in the name of Jesus Christ, how is it appropriate to judge Islam by those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam?
Some common ground is needed before continuing so we are not spinning our wheels. You can’t (meaningfully) discuss upper division math with those who reject the most basic laws of mathematics, you can't (meaningfully) talk about the complexities of God with someone who rejects the most basic (absolute) axioms of rational thought, and you can't (meaningfully) talk morality and judge a system of faith, worship, and its moral code (i.e. religion) with someone who can't see that torturing babies for fun is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The person who rejects ALL religions as invalid (and with it any objective claims to morality) is making the same mistake as those who reject objective truth. They are using what we don't know for sure/can't all agree on (e.g., the immorality of eating certain foods, alcohol, divorce, war, waterboarding terrorists, and other grey areas) to interpret the obvious (e.g., torturing babies for fun is wrong).
Therefore, the following are prerequisites to be able to consider these matters with coherence and consistency:
1. ABSOLUTE TRUTH--If you are not confident absolute truth exists please click here before continuing.
2. OBJECTIVE MORALITY--If you are not sure whether morality is objective, please click here before continuing.
The reason the above prerequisites are necessary before continuing is because if you deny the existence of absolute truth and objective morality, any point made--no matter how obvious and demonstrable--can and will be dissolved by relativism. The discussion, therefore, would inevitably disintegrate into meaninglessness.
Cont...
The difference between those who commit acts of violence in the name of Allah and those who commit acts of violence in the name of Christ is that the Muslim is following the teachings (the acts of violence) consistently in context--notice the surahs below and many more are timelessly prescriptive (i.e., they do not have any time context to limit them). They are open-ended and refer to attacking and killing unbelievers and those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran (i.e., those who are still among them today); therefore, their job is not done!
These are just a few surahs from the Koran Muslims follow that justify their brutal acts of terror:
"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 Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Surah 2:216)
"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an." (8:12)
"Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them."(2:191)
"Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood." (9:123)
"When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them." (9:5)
We have all heard what is quickly becoming a cliché: “No religion condones the killing of innocence." Islam might not condone killing innocence, but Islam doesn’t consider you, me or any other non-Muslim “innocent.” Why? Because there are two groups of people in Islam—the Muslim and the unbeliever (the infidel). And one group is always guilty—the infidel. This is why a Muslim can justify (through the Koran) attacking infidels at any moment. A common retort is, “No, these verses are meant only for when Muslims are fighting a war.” Many Muslims consider Islam “at war” with the West. In fact, as William Lane Craig points out in the audio clip below, the world, according to Islam, is divided into two camps--Dar al-Islam ("the house of submission") and Dar al-harb ("the house of war").
The U.S. Navy was formed to fight MUSLIMS who kept attacking our ships. The Naval Act of 1794, which created our U.S. Navy, was in response to American merchant ships constantly being attacked in the Mediterranean Sea by Muslim pirates who would take the goods from the ships, enslave the crew members and hold them for ransom. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli to inquire about the motives/justification for the attacks. Jefferson reported back to Secretary of State John Jay, and the Continental Congress what he heard from the ambassador:
"The Ambassador answered us, that (the aggression) was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Muhammad]; that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority, were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslims] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Once again, this is why a Muslim can justify (through the Koran) attacking infidels at any moment, and is precisely why we see such a disproportionate amount of attacks on the general population coming from followers of Muhammad. Last but not least we hear, “But they are killing other Muslims so they can’t be Muslim.” Muslims kill other Muslims because they consider those other Muslims hypocrites and their Koran tells them to kill the unbelievers AND THE HYPOCRITES (see Quran 9:73). See also the chronology of the Shiite-Sunni conflict.
Bottom line: There is no distinct line (time context) in Islam that separates the COMMANDS for violence against the infidel between the time of Muhammad and now that an adherent could consistently follow. If you are wondering how Christians can consistently NOT follow the prescriptive texts in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy and Leviticus) regarding stoning certain sinners please click here.
Now let's look at some scriptures from the Old Testament that many refer to as "violent." Notice the violence in the Old Testament is either a time specific prescription for the nation of Israel to destroy certain wicked nations (during that time) or a description of what already took place. The verse below in Deuteronomy is time specific to the nation of Israel. In fact, all those nations God instructed Israel to destroy have been destroyed and so there is no way to misinterpret that text as being applicable today.
Deuteronomy 20: 17-18--"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God."
Notice how the verses from the Bible below are descriptive--they are describing historical events that were time specific to the nation of Israel—what happened in the past (I will not include the whole passage for the sake of space. I just want to show that the context of the text is past tense).
Joshua 11--“At that time…” (indicating the past)
Exodus 32:27-29--“Then he said to them…The Levites did..." (past tense)
Joshua 8:24-26--“When the Israelite army finished chasing and killing…" (past
tense)
Deuteronomy 2:32-34--“…And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly
destroyed…"(past tense)
1 Samuel 15:7-8--“Then Saul slaughtered the Amalekites from Havilah all the way
to Shur, east of Egypt. 8 He captured Agag, the Amalekite king, but completely destroyed everyone else." (past tense)
Numbers 31: 3-20 The slaughter of Midian
3 "Moses spoke..." (past tense)
5 "So there were..." (past tense)
6 "Moses sent them..." (past tense)
7 "So they made war against Midian..." (past tense)
8 "They killed..." (past tense)
9 "The sons of Israel captured..." (past tense)
10 "Then they burned..." (past tense)
11 "They took..." (past tense)
12 "They brought..." (past tense)
13 "Moses and Eleazar...went out..." (past tense)
14 "Moses was..." (past tense)
15 "Moses said to them, 'Have you spared all the women...now therefore, kill every male...'" (describing a quote from the past)
While all of the Bible's prescriptions are described, not all of the descriptions
are prescribed. The examples above are examples of a description of the past. This is not a boundless, timeless prescription of how to act. Therefore, anyone who used these texts to justify acts of violence would clearly be taking them out of context. Another example of this disparity is how the Old Testament describes polygamist relationships, but it does not prescribe them.
Notice the verses in the Koran are timeless prescriptions; they are not
describing what happened in the past.
While the Old Testament handled time specific prescriptions for the nation of Israel to deal with other nations around them and descriptions of the past, Jesus (in the New Testament) handled the timeless prescriptions of how His followers should act then, now, and in the future. How did Jesus instruct us how to act?
Here's a quick summary of what Jesus prescribed (i.e., how He instructed us to live):
Matthew 22:36--“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all
your soul, and all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 The
entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two
commandments
Romans 12:9-21--"Don’t just pretend to love others. Really love them. Hate
what is wrong. Hold tightly to what is good. Love each other with genuine
affection, and take delight in honoring each other. Never be lazy, but work
hard and serve the Lord enthusiastically. Rejoice in our confident hope. Be
patient in trouble, and keep on praying. When God’s people are in need, be
ready to help them. Always be eager to practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you. Don’t curse them; pray that God will bless
them. Be happy with those who are happy, and weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with each other. Don’t be too proud to enjoy the company of ordinary people. And don’t think you know it all! Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone
can see you are honorable. Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.
Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God.
For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the Lord.
Instead, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.’ Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil by doing good.”
In conclusion, those who commit violence in the name of Allah are adherents (they are not heretics) to the instructions of Islam (through the life example and instructions from their prophet Muhammad). However, those who commit violence in the name of Christ are heretics (they are not adherents) to the instructions of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Put another way, not every Christian is perfect. Jesus was. Not every Muslim is a jihadist who wants to do whatever it takes (including beheading infidels) to advance Sharia Law and submission to Allah throughout the world. Muhammad was. This is not hate. This is the fact of the matter.
Here are 4 videos and a link that reiterate the analysis and conclusion above. All resources are worth listening to in their entirety but I have highlighted the times that are most pertinent to the subject matter. The videos will be ordered in the amount of time it takes to review the subject I am highlighting.
Put another way, not every Christian is perfect. Jesus was. Not every Muslim is a jihadist who wants to do whatever it takes (including beheading infidels) to advance Sharia Law and submission to Allah throughout the world. Muhammad was. This is not hate. This is the fact of the matter.
Here are 4 videos and a link that reiterate the analysis and conclusion above. All resources are worth listening to in their entirety but I have highlighted the times that are most pertinent to the subject matter. The videos will be ordered in the amount of time it takes to review the subject I am highlighting.
Nabeel Qureshi (former devout Muslim who is now a follower of Christ) reiterated what has been outlined above and candidly admitted, "If I still believed in Islam and if I wanted to be faithful to Muhammad I would have a hard time NOT going to Syria right now." (6 minute video) |
|
Brigitte Gabriel (22:00-30:00) |
|
William Lane Craig (20:00-22:00) (26:25-29:20) (31:30-35:20) |
|
Nabeel Qureshi (former Muslim) and David Wood debate Muslims on whether Islam is a religion of peace. (3 parts total over 2 hours) Part 1-----------> |
|
Part 2-----------> |
|
Part 3-----------> |
|