Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Huffington Post has an article that quotes, anonymously, another Muslim soldier at Ft. Hood who knew Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the military officer who killed 13 fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood last week. They worshiped at the same on-base mosque and had argued about the nature of Islam and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, they had said prayers side by side the morning Hasan went on his shooting spree. A sample:
As Richard got to know Hasan better over the next several months, he found the major to be a pious man who was at the mosque daily. But Richard also began to garner a sense of Hasan's political views that troubled him. A black-and-white outlook on Islam and life that had no room for nuance or debate. Hasan had apparently attended a mosque led by an imam named Anwar Al-Awlaki, a Yemeni scholar whose political views Richard disagrees with.Awlaki is a controversial figure among Muslims, and has been accused by the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 of serving as a "spiritual advisor" to two of the September 11 hijackers. While Richard is careful to say that he respects much of Awlaki's historical scholarship, he rejects his political ideology, which posits a black-and-white, us versus them, view of America's relationship with the Islamic world.
Richard's own study of Islam has revealed that such a harsh dualistic approach to religion is very much against the history of Islamic thought and practice. Indeed, debate is central to the Islamic tradition, and mainstream Muslims have always understood that true faith requires openness to nuance and subtlety. In my novel, Mother of the Believers, which tells the story of Islam from the perspective of Aisha, Prophet Muhammad's wife, I discuss how the early Muslim community engaged in profound debate and discourse in the search for truth. An embrace of subtlety and intellectual sophistication is inherent to the Islamic tradition.
But this kind of subtlety is anathema to fundamentalists of any religion or ideology, who are incapable of seeing other points of view. And the backlash against my book by Muslim fundamentalists reveals the deep-seated fear that such people have of mainstream Muslims' efforts to take back the discourse from those who cannot accept shades of grey in life and faith.
Richard does not know how heavily Hasan was influenced by fundamentalist thinkers like Awlaki. But the major's views were definitely troubling. Richard described an incident where Hasan made some anti-Semitic comments about Jews as a nation being "cursed by God" in Islam. Richard responded that the Qur'an does not condemn any group of people collectively, and that no one is born "cursed" by their ancestry.
Indeed, even though there are verses that are critical of some Jews who were political opponents to Prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an states very clearly that it is speaking only in relation to those who do evil, not those who do good, and that God judges people by their actions. (3:75-76). Another verse is even more explicit:
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Christians and the Sabians -- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (2:62)
When Richard made this point, Hasan became flustered and simply responded that as a "revert" Richard clearly did not know Islam as well as he did, someone who had been raised as a Muslim. But from Richard's point of view, Hasan was simply regurgitating cultural attitudes and prejudices and cloaking them in the form of religion. And in the process he was blinding himself to what Islam actually taught.
Here's what I think is very important to remember on this issue: There is not one Islam but many Islams, just as there is not one Christianity but many Christianities. The Christianity of Fred Phelps is different from the Christianity of Jerry Falwell, which is different from the Christianity of Jim Wallis, which is different from the Christianity of Barry Lynn or Bishop Spong.
The disagreements between these groups are so deep and so fundamental that it is absurd to group them under the same label. At one extreme are gay-affirming clergy and at the other extreme are those who want to put gays to death. At one extreme are those who want a complete separation between church and state and at the other are those who advocate a brutal theocracy.
The same is true of Islam. The Islam of Osama Bin Laden is not the same as the Islam of Muqtedar Khan or Louis Sufay. And just like the Bible contains enough contradictory statements that one can find inspiration and support for everything from sublime kindness to the most depraved barbarism, the same is true of the Quran. Decent, caring people will find plenty of support for being decent and caring in either the Bible or the Quran; cruel, brutal people will find plenty of support for cruelty and brutality.
We need to stop thinking of major religions as a single monolithic group. They simply don't fit that narrative.
Politics
Comments
Now why is that such a hard concept for people to understand. Just seems some people want to paint an entire religion with one stroke I guess...
Posted by: Scott Reese | November 10, 2009 9:22 AM
Quite right, Ed. I would just add that I often see commenters who not only treat "Christianity" or "Islam" as a single monolithic group, but even treat "religion" as a single monolithic group. I think that perspective obscures a lot more than it reveals, for the same reasons given in this post.
Posted by: Tom | November 10, 2009 9:28 AM
I always find it amusing when the Quran is criticized for the bloodthirsty passages in it. The Hebrew bible is no better (e.g. Joshua slaughtering the inhabitants of Jericho on command of Yahweh after the successful siege of that village and Saul being condemned to death for having the temerity to disobey Yehwehs' command to slaughter the Amalekites). The Book of Revelations in the Christian Bible is not exactly a font of charity either.
Posted by: SLC | November 10, 2009 9:32 AM
"The disagreements between these groups are so deep and so fundamental that it is absurd to group them under the same label. "
Thanks for saying that Ed, but I doubt it will get much traction at this website :p
Posted by: JohnV | November 10, 2009 9:35 AM
I sign-up to your thesis Ed but think a concurring argument is also required. I think Muslims were either incapable or unwilling to effectively and articulately condemn the 9/11 attacks. This vacuum opened the door to the zealots who rely on confirmation bias to attack their opponents. I'm not saying many Muslims didn't try, they did, but I argue they were ineffective. I tend to lean on the side they tried but failed.
Here is a great example of someone effectively defending Islam and America. Maybe one of the best guests I've ever seen on Chris Matthew's show. I'm not arguing this was missing seven years ago or that this is an effective approach. Instead I found this to be an extremely insightful look into how Muslims can incorporate American values into interpreting their religious dogma political positions, and debates. I know I learned from this discourse, though not on Mr. Matthew's end.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 9:36 AM
Thanks for writing this, Ed. I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Kristinmh | November 10, 2009 9:37 AM
We also must not fall into the trap of thinking that all major religions have the same ratio of militant radicals. In many parts of the world, the Muslim population has a very substantial percentage of radical militants, according to to research published by the Pew group, defined as those who advocate suicide bombings as being justified in the defense of Islam.
And I think it is fair to say that Sharia law is not exactly aligned with democratic progressivism either. No matter how one slices it, Islam is not very supportive of Enlightenment values.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 10, 2009 9:40 AM
When I heard it was a Muslim who went berserk at Fort Hood, my heart sank, because I knew it would just feed the anti-Islam fervor in the States. (Visit Pam Geller's and Debbie Schlussel's websites for a glimpse, then rinse your eyes repeatedly with clean water.) Now that it has come out he had even tenuous connections to a radical Muslim leader, it will feed the flames even more. Geller, Schlussel, et alia, will feel justified in labeling every Muslim a potential enemy of the state. "You just can't trust 'em" -- the standard bigot line since emancipation.
I don't know whether you've paid much attention to the Rifqa Bary saga, but the Xian fundies have seized onto this girl's plight as a symbol of the "Islamization" of America, and have painted her seemingly middle-class, immigrant American parents as wide-eyed Muslim fanatics bent on killing their only daughter for becoming a Xian. The bigotry underlying most of the invective sounds just like the KKK.
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 10, 2009 9:41 AM
Every religion has moderates and fanatics. But still every religion has fanatics...and who's to blame the fanatics, who often quote scripture just as well as the moderates (there are certainly violent Quran verses). The problem is the idea of a divine plan, and warping that plan to one's own cultural hatreds. The Quran and Bible can be used to justify anything, which is why they are dangerous like dry tinder, even if many followers are not inherently dangerous. Morality coming from a single objective source has been proved flawed over and over again, as all morality is in the end subjective to the interpretations of the believer.
I do not paint believers with the same brush, I know they are varied and are all trying to serve their Gods in their own way, but their holy books do not change, and the same problems keep cropping up.
Posted by: J. Allen | November 10, 2009 9:44 AM
No matter how one slices it, Islam is not very supportive of Enlightenment values.
It's almost superfluous to point out that the Old Testament isn't, either.
Posted by: Shay | November 10, 2009 9:53 AM
The New Testament isn't very Enlightenment-friendly either.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | November 10, 2009 10:04 AM
While I agree with the sentiment and obvious points of your post, Ed, it is just as often the religious themselves who paint with the same brush. Think of all the times you hear the old saw that because the US is ~80% 'xian' then they should be allowed to trample the rights of non-xians.
You and I and anyone with half a brain cell to rub together know the very next thing that would happen would be sectarian warfare, but that doesn't seem to phase them at all. Combine that with the silence of the moderates when the radicals do something like this, or the flying shrapnel of no true Scotsmen, and you can hardly blame anyone else for taking the intellectual shortcut and lumping them all together.
I'd rather not let them get away with selectively choosing when they are part of the same group. If they want to claim affiliation when it's convenient, then I'm damn well going to express that same affiliation when it isn't.
It's a vain attempt to keep the fuckers honest, regardless of religious stripe.
Posted by: Fastlane | November 10, 2009 10:06 AM
Yep. I agree with Ed 100% on this, and commend him for pointing this out, since I think it's something that needs to be said.
Islam, like Christianity, is a broad tradition encompassing thousands of different sects - some liberal and some conservative, and all holding to different theologies and practices. Some are reactionary and dangerous, while others are benign and decent. Just as blaming all Christians for Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell is foolish, so too is blaming all Muslims for the lunacy of radical Islamism. The fact that I am an agnostic, and reject all orthodox theistic religion, does not mean that I consider all religious movements uniformly evil. They are not. And we should distinguish between the extreme and the moderate.
Of course, I would add that we should be unafraid to condemn Islamic fundamentalism, just as we condemn Christian fundamentalism, as backward-looking and oppressive. But we shouldn't attack "Islam" as if it were some kind of monolithic evil conspiracy.
Posted by: Walton | November 10, 2009 10:09 AM
Michael Heath wrote:
As I've written before, it isn't so much that they failed; it's that the media simply didn't cover it. And the only way to get such a message out in the world today to a significant number of people is for the television media to pick it up. They didn't. The truth is that lots and lots of Muslim scholars and organizations unequivocally condemned 9/11 and continue to condemn terrorism today. I've reprinted some of their statements. Unfortunately, few media outlets ever picked up on it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 10, 2009 10:11 AM
Hear, Hear Ed! A person's worldview really decides what they get out of reading any literture and the bible and quran are no different. I took an education class where we talked about idealogy (aka worldview) and how that determines what one will "see" and attend to in their daily lives. Ideology is at the core of the differences within the major religions of the world.
Posted by: Paul Merda | November 10, 2009 10:16 AM
Gingerbaker wrote:
I absolutely agree with this. I have mocked in the past the notion that Islam and Christianity are equally dangerous and malevolent ideologies as practiced today. The Enlightenment humanized Christianity and Islam has yet to undergo anything similar. There are still pockets of serious theocracy and barbarism advocates in Christianity, but they are nowhere near the percentage found in Islam today around the world. Christianity is certainly a more immediate problem in terms of driving policy in the United States, but the number of true Christian theocrats is vastly outnumbered by the number of Islamic theocrats today. For example, I can't think of anywhere in the world where they routinely kill someone for deconverting from Christianity; in Islam that practice is not only common, it's codified in the law of many nations controlled by Muslims.
The point here is not to diminish the horrors of radical Islam, which are real and serious and, as you say, absolutely contrary to Enlightenment values. It is to point out that there are many other forms of Islam that have accepted modernism and mixed with Enlightenment values, just as much of Christianity has, and we should not treat all Muslims as though they are part of the same group with suicide bombers and murderers.
Posted by: Ed Braytons | November 10, 2009 10:22 AM
All true and well but if we're going to be allowed to utilize words at all we're going to need to compromise a tad and say that "Islam is..." whatever the majority of those who presently claim to be its practitioners say it is.
Is that perfect? Nyet. Bothers the fuck out of me, but it does get us out of the morass of nonsensically comparing Islam's sacred texts with those of other religions and saying, "see? Islam and Christianity are the exact same!"
Cause they aint. Their texts may or may not contain an identical number of exhortations towards righteous violence but what really matters is how people who currently view those texts as scared actually interpret those texts for themselves.
The Christian Bible can call for the ritual slaughter of all non-Christians for all I care but so long as the number of Christians who read that passage correctly are minimal, then Christianity does not condone slaughter.
Likewise, the Quran can exhort its members to pass out pink bunnies to all non-believers but so long as those who claim to be its adherents read said passage as calling for beheadings, well then, Houston, we've got a problem with Islam.
I mention this not because I give two shits about semantics but because allowing for nonsensical comparisons between the faiths lets the slimily dishonest squeeze their defense of Islam through by noting that heck, it aint any different from Christianity!
There's a difference.
You face an exceedingly tiny threat of physical harm from Christians while you face a non-negligible threat from Muslims.
We can all hate Christians on our own time (personally I prefer to mock them rather than hate them) but when we get together as grownups we need to be able to think straight about these things - and Christians needn't be on our radar while Muslims ought to be a serious matter of concern.
mnuez
Posted by: mnuez | November 10, 2009 10:28 AM
Ed Brayton stated @ 14:
Your observation actually supports my speculation they tried but failed. I'm not sure if your comment @ 14 is buttressing my argument or dissenting from it. From my perspective it buttresses it by noting that Muslims, unlike other groups, have failed to develop adequate access to media in a way where their arguments can not be avoided and ignored but are instead incorporated into the national understanding.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2009 10:37 AM
mnuez,
No worries, because it doesn't. It is not a matter of interpretation--there is simply no passage that calls for the killing of non-Christians. About the closest you find is Paul in Gal 5:12 wishing that the Judaizers (probably his thorn in the flesh) seeking to re-bind the new Christians to OT law would cut off their own balls. Paul had a way with words.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 10:39 AM
Thank you for making this point. I've been trying to make this point for so long, but some people have decided that all religious people are bad, and that's all they care about. It's a logical fallacy to lump everyone in a group together, even if they're in that group by choice.
Posted by: catgirl | November 10, 2009 10:47 AM
Mnuez, that's only relevant if you assume Islam is what's causing the violence. I think the violence that is a "serious matter of concern" is driven primarily by other factors, like economy, history, social psychology, an so on. Think about it this way. If you acknowledge there are violent and non-violent strains of Islam, why would people choose to follow the violent one? It's those factors, the ones that drive people to embrace the more radical interpretations and reject the moderate ones, that are a problem. Islam's main power is that it acts as a rallying point. But even if you somehow magically got everyone to stop believing in Islam overnight, the radical feelings would remain.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 10, 2009 10:57 AM
Gingerbaker wrote:
We also must not fall into the trap of thinking that all major religions have the same ratio of militant radicals. In many parts of the world, the Muslim population has a very substantial percentage of radical militants, according to to research published by the Pew group, defined as those who advocate suicide bombings as being justified in the defense of Islam.
---------------------
No doubt this is true, Pew is not in the habit of cooking the numbers, afaia. Of course those parts of the world where Islam has a substantial percentage of radical militants are also, in many cases, places where the U.S., Great Britain and Russia have exerted deadly force, indiscriminately, on their populations. Not everywhere, but certainly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt have all been places where ME muslims got in the way of the superpowers--and paid the price in blood. I suspect that if Syrian warplanes bombed cities in this country, followed by them landing troops on our shores, that a fair number of christians would get all jiggy about it.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 11:11 AM
Abby...what?
I kid. I understand precisely what you're saying and all that you say is good and well when it comes to a scholarly talk on the subject but when we're engaged in threat assessment we need to point out "The Problem Is Muslims", rather than some sort of complicated worldwide socio-economic-psycho-sexual-whatever.
We need a flag and a focus and I have no problem with a bit of sophistication in that focus (along with decrying the stupidity of the masses who really do believe that there's such a thing as "Islam" and such a thing as "Christianity" and that one is tolerant while the other is evil) but the fact is that most of the dissembling is coming from people who are not interested in scholarly accuracy such as yourself but who are rather interested in utilizing the actual and literal threat that we face from Muslims in order to hammer against their pet peeve of Christianity by pointing out their similarities (bad texts, good texts, yadda yadda) rather than their real world differences.
I do not care about the fact that many texts in Judaism call for my murder (for indeed they do) because, after all, almost all of radical Judaism's current adherents have found creative ways of explaining why those texts do not apply to me. I do however have some concern regarding some possibly radical texts in Islamic texts because a too-large percentage of its adherents view those texts in such a way as to constitute a serious potential threat to us.
Again - we can engage in scholarly discussion about many things (the confluence of factors that causes violence among disparate groups and individuals, the various interpretations of historical and present world faiths, etc) but throwing red herrings around that are designed to distract us from the real world implications that we face from people who call themselves "Muslims", hardly does anyone any favors.
mnuez
Posted by: mnuez | November 10, 2009 11:12 AM
Really?
How about Matthew 11:23 (and repeated for other cities, as well, in Luke):
Or Matthew 13:41:
Or Matthew 24:37, where Jesus promises to kill everyone on Earth who is not his follower:
Or Mark 6:11:
Or Luke 13:5:
Or John3:36:
Etc, etc, etc...
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 10, 2009 11:27 AM
Our local paper ran a story in relation to the Ft. Hood killings. "Area Muslim leaders say shootings not motivated by religion." The leaders basically expressed disappointment that Islam would be blamed by some people saying, “I knew that some people would be fishing in such filthy water to blame us, to blame our religion, to blame our loyalty to this country. That is wrong, we are not like that.”
They didn't offer one word condemning these kinds of actions in the name of Islam, should it turn out that religion did motivate the shooter. It seems they were most interested in distancing themselves from the shooter and his actions.
If this is not what Islam is about, why do Imams issue declarations that enemies of Islam be killed? Why did Anwar al Awlaki praise the killings at Ft. Hood, calling Muslims who condemned the shootings traiters?
I just don't get the religiion thing.
Posted by: Owen | November 10, 2009 11:29 AM
Mnuez, I disagree. Labeling the problem as "Muslim" is the red herring. It invites us to view the conflict as a simple clash of ideology. But approaching it that way is a loosing proposition because it does not address the source of the conflict. Instead it just drives both sides deeper in to their "us" and "them" camps. It cuts us of from those liberal and moderate Muslim elements that would be our natural allies and further radicalizes the more fundamentalist elements.
As Sun Tzu is famously quoted, "Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." Ignoring the nuance for the sake of having a simple and convenient flag to rally against is, at best, dicey. To ensure victory we have to understand who they are and what motivates them. We must therefore be take the time to understand why they are the enemy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 10, 2009 11:44 AM
Here in TX, the locals have jumped on the Muslim aspect and have all but called for the immediate expulsion of all Muslims from the US Military (and they're probably days away from wanting them interred as well). They are also saying the usual vile tripe about the President and his non-existent Muslim connections.
There is one aspect of this whole situation that is getting overlooked. When you get past the Muslim aspect (which is really just a red herring, as Abby said), this is about a guy who was mentally imbalanced who lost it. This was a standard workplace shooting. It just happened to have occurred at a military base, because that's where the guy worked. The scene repeated itself (on a much smaller scale) in Orlando the following day.
Posted by: Bouj | November 10, 2009 11:51 AM
Gingerbaker,
Yes, really.
You do grasp the difference between a teaching that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal torment and the wrath of God after they are dead (More accurately, after final judgment) and a call for Christians to take the lives of non-Christians? The latter is not found, anywhere. I am amazed you would substitute one for the other.
Here's the difference in practical terms.
In the case of the former (the bible promises ultimate divine judgment on non-Christians) if you are not a Christian you should not care or be worried at all. After all, why worry that a Christian thinks your ultimate destination is hell when you don't believe that the place or his god is real? Who cares? I don't care what a Muslim thinks about my ultimate destination.
But if the bible taught, which it doesn't, anywhere, that Christian should kill non-Christians, then you should be worried if a bible reading and praying Christian gets up and spends a long time in the restroom of a commercial jetliner.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 11:52 AM
Bouj: Thanks for the (really bad and scary) news. And no thanks to all those axe-grinding bigots on the other thread whose narrow and misguided focus is no doubt being used to fan the flames of fear and hate.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2009 11:58 AM
Just for the record, it is possible to recognize that there are vast difference between different types of Christians, different types of Muslims, etc., and still also be critical of religion as a whole. Just sayin'.
However, I do agree that failure to recognize that there are Fred Phelpses and Barry Lynns and everything in between can lead to a lot unnecessary confrontation. I can applaud Barry Lynn for some of the things he does, while still being critical of him for feeling he needs these superstitions and dogma when clearly he would be just as good of a person without them, for example. Or does that make me an "axe-grinding bigot"???
Posted by: James Sweet | November 10, 2009 12:11 PM
Heddle said:
Those quotes and many others were not about the hereafter - they were threats concerning the wrath of Jesus at the present time he said them, or when he returned - days after he died. The threat was imminent and was also not abstract, it was about the destruction of cities as well as non believers worldwide, before they died.
As for whether they were to be regarded as instructions for Christian activism, the historical record speaks for itself. You may rightfully have a modern synthesis that rejects this, but you also have two thousand years of ecclesiastically-endorsed slaughter by Christian hands to account for. Your argument boils down to special pleading, IMO. The New Testament is as bad as the Old Testament(which Jesus endorsed) which is as bad as the Koran.
You yourself have argued at Scienceblogs that the Christian God is not an all-loving God.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 10, 2009 12:26 PM
I've heard it said that the difference between wildly divergent sects of a religion that insist on keeping the same name is like a group keeping the name of the KKK because the barbeque is great even though they don't care so much for all the racism.
Posted by: Jeremy S | November 10, 2009 12:35 PM
I may surprise some people with these comments, and I hope you'll at least read enough to see where I am coming from. But the article Ed quotes, to me, shows me why this man shouldn't have been counseling troops (any more than Klingenschmidt and Ammerman should be), and shows me that some of the cries from the right might be justified in this particular case. (Before I read it, I had expected that it would come out that he had just been 'driven over the edge' by extreme Christianism or by 'combat fatigue' and had just 'lost it.')
The key word in the piece, absolutely a 'tell,' is when he refers to 'Robert' as a 'revert.' That is a term used, I believe exclusively, by Selafist (the term they prefer, othrs use "Wahhabist") Muslims, the type of extremists belief that comes from Saudi Arabia and has been widely spread in Pakistan and the area.
Selafists use 'revert' rather than 'convert' because, in their belief, everyone is born knowing the truth of Islam, we are all born 'slaves to God' knowing the ideas that Mohammed taught as God's final message to mankind -- the same message that was taught by Jesus -- until his followers screwed it up -- and by Moses and Noah and the other, earlier prophets. Therefore, no one 'converts' to Islam, they merely 'revert' to their natural state.
Delafism is both interesting and scary -- and occasionally funny from the outside -- spend some time on this site to see what they are like at their most extreme puritanism.
One example, picked almost at random, on whether women could be teachers or lawyers -- emphasis mine:
The trouble is that they are not just absurdly puritanical. (A man 'forced' to ride on an unsegregated bus who gets aroused by a female fellow-passenger should get off the bus and walk, even if it means showing up late for work or school because what's more important, money or your immortal soul.) They also tend to be a font of terrorism.
Let me make this point strongly: Not all -- nor even a substantial minority of -- Selafists are terrorists, but most 'religiously motivated' terrorists are Selafists. (Palestinians, who come closer to Abby Normal's description (at 10:57 -- the last post before I started this) are different and much more secular.)
I should also state that very very few American Muslims -- even if they called themselves Selafists follow it rigorously -- any more than American Catholics, even conservative ones follow all the religious or sexual rules of Catholicism.
On a slightly different note, one reason for the low visibility of Muslims criticizing the terrorists is that there is a rule -- again, not always followed - that a Muslim should not criticize another Muslim 'in front of non-believers.'
I want to discuss the Qur'an in a separate post, but I'll ask here -- given how long it takes me sometimes to get back to a post -- how many of you have actually read it -- in any translation. It's very easy to expect it to be like other 'sacred texts' -- a collection of illustrative stories and mostly narrative with lessons.
It isn't. What it is is a collection of sermons by the religious and military leader of a 'conquering band' that was, in fact, the most successful group of conquerors since Alexander. (It was also put together -- from memory -- twenty years after Mohammed's death, one reason why it has a strange arrangement. The suras are arranged by size, longest first, because the compilers weren't sure what was said when -- and sensible Muslims will admit that some verses got stuck in practically at random. ("We remember he said it, but aren't sure when, but it goes nicely with the rest of Sura 28.")
More later.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 10, 2009 12:38 PM
Gingerbaker ,
No, none of those passages refer to what would happen immediately after the resurrection. Some such passages may be interpreted (I do) as the coming wrath of God on the Jews in AD 70. Even in those cases, and even if that interpretation is correct, or even if the interpretation that it was meant to happen just after the resurrection was correct (which makes Jesus a great false prophet) it still refers to the supernatural wrath of God, not instructions for any Christian to kill a non Christian.
In the Qur'an, and in the OT, you can find direct instruction for the righteous to kill infidels. But nowhere in the New Testament. Saying they are equivalent in this regard is to ignore, utterly, the facts.
And yes I believe and have argued that God is not an all-loving god. But that doesn't mean you have license to invent divine commands for Christians to kill non-Christians where none exist.
Prup (aka Jim Benton),
I have read the Qur'an --though I don't know the quality of my English translation. As I understand it, there is not the same level as quality control as found in the scholarly English translations of the bible.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Here's another article on Hasan (with reference to DADT and the military's excessive concern over gays):
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/11/military-retains-psychotic-religious.html
NOTE: the article contains a cite to an ABC News article that makes, but does not substantiate, let alone prove, the claim that Hasan had tried to "contact al Qaeda."
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2009 1:10 PM
Jim:
I will take you at your word re: the Koran, selafists, wahabism, etc., as I have never known you to make comments that you have not put a good deal of thinking and study into.
While it may be true that Hasan should not have been in the position he was in, his acts are being used to scapegoat an entire group. As you said, the wahabist set of beliefs is not embraced by a large percentage of the world's muslims.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 1:17 PM
heddle: What about John 15:6? It's got all the ingredients; rejection, men, burning, men doing the burning...and it has been interpreted in that manner in the past, if memory serves.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 1:25 PM
Modusoperandi
Jesus is speaking in metaphors. Again this speaks of ultimate judgment. He does not tell the abiding branches (believers) to burn the unabiding branches—he, Jesus, will ultimately take care of that. It is not an instruction for Christians to kill non-Christians.
Here, for point of reference, is what such a command would read like:
And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Sura 2:191)
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 1:46 PM
I would add that, given humans' propensity for bias, denial and self-delusion, this is always true. We can't ascribe people's love of hatred solely to religion in general any more than to one religion specifically. Someone doesn't get a guarantee of unbiased judgement solely because they are scientists, atheists, or even skeptics. I submit that we're seeing some of that now.
The only claim we can make is that critical thinking gives us one of the few tools we possess capable of overcoming our natural self-delusion; and communities that actively value, teach, and practice critical thinking may be less vulnerable to codified injustice. Religions in general aren't known for this. But being rational is only one, relatively difficult, part of being a human.
Posted by: Pteryxx | November 10, 2009 1:49 PM
Heddle: Ah, but you used the NIV. Everybody in the know uses the KJV, which reads...
On this metaphorical fire are these metaphorical men burning metaphorical non-believers?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 1:58 PM
Modusoperandi ,
And just to be clear, I don't deny that some verses in the NT might have been used as justification to kill. That is not germane to the original point (mnuez, #17) which was this: There are explicit calls to followers to kill (well, ritually slaughter) unbelievers--calls that must be excused away. That is simply not true about the NT.
Anything can be used to justify killing. Some nutcase might use one of Ed's posts or one of my posts to justify killing. The question was not about co-opting verses for evil purposes--it was in fact the opposite--it was about glossing over calls to commit violence.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 1:59 PM
http://exiledonline.com/fort-hood-cover-up-a-dozen-tales-of-disinformation/
Posted by: Jonathan | November 10, 2009 1:59 PM
heddle (#38): Probably the closest Old Testament equivalent to that is Deuteronomy 13:6-9: "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you, or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."
That would surely promote honor killing in a tribal culture.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 10, 2009 2:00 PM
heddle "The question was not about co-opting verses for evil purposes..."
Except that, with that passage, they were right...at the time. As with the anti-abolutionists or the anti-miscegenationists or the anti-universal suffragists, they're only wrong...now.
That you interpret it differently in no way precludes the possibility that you're the one who is wrong. It's always the other guy who is wrong. Theology is the science of never being wrong.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 2:06 PM
Modusoperandi,
Fair point about the KJV--I always check the NIV and ESV and never the KJV.
SO I checked the Greek--the word men is not there:
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not (G3362 G5100 G3306) in (G1722) me, (G1698) he is cast (G906) forth (G1854) as (G5613) a branch, (G2814) and (G2532) is withered; (G3583) and (G2532) men gather (G4863) them, (G846) and (G2532) cast (G906) them into (G1519) the fire, (G4442) and (G2532) they are burned. (G2545)
The GNNNN refers the corresponding Greek word. You will note insertions. There is in fact no subject or unambiguous antecedent in the Greek for who does the tossing, which is no doubt why the ESV translates, much more literally from the Greek, like this:
"If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."
You can see other words "filled in" by the KJV translators.
So with a little research I am probably on solid ground that the KJV translators inserted the subject.
And even if you demand I use the KJV, I would say you would still be hard pressed to interpret Jesus' metaphorical teaching as a command to kill unbelievers.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 2:16 PM
Jim Lippard,
Yes I readily and frequently admit that there are calls to kill in the OT.
Modusoperandi,
Yes, maybe I interpret it wrong, and maybe it really is a call to kill. (Or maybe, just maybe, those that have used it that way, if they have, co-opted it.) That is still beside the point. In the Qu'ran and OT there are unambiguous commands: Kill. These. People. In the NT there are none. Yes, again, someone might go out of their way to interpret a verse as a license to kill. But no Christian has to go out of his way to wiggle out of a clear call to kill non-Christians--given that there is none.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 2:23 PM
Do you see what I mean? You interpret "and the branches are gathered" as in the branches are gathered by a certain person at a certain time, etaphorically, and another group comes away with a completely different answer. To you they're wrong. To them you are. And you can't be wrong. Neither can they.
Evidence-based conclusions tend to converge. Revelation-based ones diverge. It's like magic or something.
The Holy Spirit is an inerrant guide to whatever your conclusion is. Same with exegesis. Or using different translations. Or going back to the Greek (or the LXX or whatever). That's the beautiful, and terrifying, thing about it. It's always the other guy who is wrong.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 2:32 PM
"Your version of the Bible is wrong and blasphemous, therefore we must kill you"
See ho easy that is?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 10, 2009 2:36 PM
Modusoperandi,
C'mon. I readily admit that I might be wrong on any interpretation. But I stand by the statement that there are unambiguous, plain-text calls for men to kill other men in the Qur'an and the OT.
I will concede that I cannot rule out that my interpretation of a metaphorical passage is not the correct one. Maybe the one most advantageous to you has merit. Nevertheless an ambiguous metaphorical passage (if it is, ambiguous) is something altogether different.
In the Qur'an and OT you have to interpret explicit, plain-text calls to kill as meaning something other than its plain reading. In the NT, in the passage you are presenting, you have to interpret a metaphorical, ambiguous passage about vines and branches and withering and fire as giving you permission to kill.
Big difference.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 2:42 PM
heddle "In the Qu'ran and OT there are unambiguous commands: Kill. These. People. In the NT there are none."
Well, first of all, they shouldn't be obeying the commands in the Koran, because it's false. Obviously.
Secondly, who was Jesus' dad? (who was also Him, apparently, which must lead to a crazy family tree. "If your family tree is just a dot, you might be a redneck." But I digress.)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 10, 2009 2:44 PM
Chilidog ,
Very easy indeed. Vomiting mindless statements, I suspect, is among the easiest of chores.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 2:46 PM
The problem with your claims Abby Normal is pretty simple - where are the sub-Saharan terrorist groups? By every metric other then religion you could care to point to, they have much better reasons to be pissed off against the west. Colonization, racism, exploitation of natural resources, destruction of former ways of life - all these were done there, and to a much greater extent then in the middle east. And yet we don't have suicide bombers from Congo. If these social-economic and historical reasons were the sole culprit and religion was irrelevant, then why aren't these guys the center for terrorism in the world?
Hell when it comes to what the US in particular as opposed to the west more generally has done, you'd think we'd be having problems with south american terrorists, not middle-eastern ones.
Of course, it's also not as simple as just claiming "it's islam, Q.E.D". After all many of the north african countries are also muslim and yet there seems to be far more limited (if any) terrorism coming from there. But to claim that the religion is somehow incidental to the whole matter is wrong to say the least.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 10, 2009 3:02 PM
Coriolis:
Sub-saharan Africa has certainly seen it's share of terrorism and ugliness.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 3:16 PM
Coriolis: you have a good point there. My opinion is that the primary cause of the undisciplined, irrsponsible, often nihilistic violence we call "terrorism" lies in a POLITICAL culture of stagnation, tyranny, irresponsibility, scapegoating, and reactionary resistance to liberalization, modernization, and outside influences. This is what separates many Muslim nations from all of the other places you mention. As poor and oppressed/formerly oppressed as those other regions are, the peoples there are able, and willing, to take action for their own benefit, try new ideas and methods, and engage with the world. Many Muslim nations are so dominated by rigid establishments, both religious and political, that no one can make any significant progress; and since no dissent is tolerated, the people have no outlet for their energy or frustrations except through blaming outsiders for their troubles, killing them indiscriminately, and pretending that's an improvement in their conditions. The fact that their non-oil-related economies are crap in the overall global trade picture doesn't help either.
And for that dysfunctional political culture, certain very rigid, very reactionary, and very entrenched strains of Islam are VERY much to blame. They, and their secular allies, know damn well they're the cause of their people's troubles and anger, so they do everything they can to make sure all that anger gets directed at anyone else but them. Hence the scapegoating of "Crusaders and Jews," and the state financing of terror attacks against both Israelis and Americans.
But that's an argument for another thread. This one is about a workplace shooting, something we Americans can manage with no help from Islam, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
Heddle said:
I didn't have to invent anything, the clergy have been executing non Christians for centuries in the name of Jesus.
I believe it was a Pope's army which executed the Holy Wars against Muslims known as The Crusades? They get that idea from the Old Testament?
I daresay the Grand Inquisitors would have a bone or two to pick with your statement above as well.
A very few of the Grand Inquisitors and their ecclesiastical titles:
# Tomás de Torquemada, prior of Santa Cruz 1483 - 1498
# Diego Ramírez de Guzmán, bishop of Catania, bishop of Lugo 1506 - 1507
# Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo 1507 - 1517
# Juan Enguera, bishop of Vich, bishop of Lleida, Tortosa 1507 - 1513
# Luis Mercader Escolano, bishop of Tortosa 1513 - 1516
# Adrian of Utrecht 1516 - 1522
# Alonso Manrique de Lara, archbishop of Seville 1523 - 1538
# Ramón José de Arce y Rebollar, archbishop of Amida, Burgos and Zaragoza 1797 - 1798
# Francisco J.Mier y Campillo, bishop of Almería 1814 - 1818
# Jerónimo Castillón y Salas, bishop of Tarazona 1818 - 1820
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 10, 2009 4:49 PM
I agree with you, Ed, but your main statement is a bit misleading. Rather than saying there are many Islams, I think it would be better to say that there are many beliefs about what Islam is and says. If you ask Muslims if it would be correct to describe Islam as the set of everything Muhammad meant to communicate, the vast majority of them will say yes. Well, scholars know with pretty high certainty what Muhammad wanted his religion to be, which means that some 'versions' of Islam are factually wrong. Some Muslims have more accurate beliefs about Islam than others. For example, those Muslims who believe that Muhammad didn't really mean to say that apostates should be killed are mistaken.
Saying that there are many Islams gives the impression that there is no consensus among scholars (Muslim or secular) about what Islam is. That there are people who call themselves Muslims and who hold beliefs that totally contradict this consensus doesn't alter the fact that it exists.
Posted by: Janus | November 10, 2009 4:53 PM
Gingerbaker,
So they have. What are the NT passages that instruct them in plain text to kill anyone? The fact that they did proves that they were murderers, not that the NT gave them license to do so--because it doesn't.
Take the Crusades. Where is the NT support for such an idea? Where does it say: Jerusalem is my holy city, and it it must be kept in the hands of my church? Answer: it does not. (It does, however, talk about the destruction and trampling of Jerusalem--but it fails to mention the recapture thereof. And it discounts Jerusalem, with Jesus announcing that worship will occur anywhere and everywhere, not confined to the temple.)
I have not argued that men have never killed in the name of Jesus. That would be foolish. I have argued that there is nothing in the NT commanding them to kill in the name of Jesus, or march to the Holy Land in the name of Jesus, or burn or drown or stone in the name of Jesus.
That is what started this subthread--not what misguided people might do, but whether holy books call, explicitly, for believers to kill unbelievers. In parts the Qur'an does. So does the OT. The NT never does. Your comment is a red herring.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Coriolis, sub-Saharan Africa also has very different economic, historical, and social influences than the Middle East. That it hasn’t produced as many anti-American terrorists makes perfect sense and says nothing about my claim. But given the violence seen in much of the region, it is a good example of what I’m talking about. Widespread hardship destabilizes. The major difference is the people of that region have largely turned their frustration inward, rather then focusing outward, as groups like al Qaeda have.
Religion certainly influences culture. Islam, like all religions, is and idea and ideas matter. I don’t mean to imply otherwise. But what attracts people to one idea over another is based on what preceded it. Looking at Islamic fundamentalism as a root cause won’t serve us nearly as well as understanding why it is attractive to some people. Likewise, blaming all Muslims for the actions of its most radical elements does nothing to further our understanding of the problem and hurts us by alienating the very people best able bridge the gap.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 10, 2009 5:04 PM
heddle:
Oh, really?I'm surprised that no one has pointed out this one:
And before heddle comes in with three layers of hand-waving excuses (which--hello?--are available for the Qur'an and OT as well):It's in a parable. Jesus is "quoting" a "nobleman" ordering mass murder--in the future, when the "nobleman" has returned from a trip away during which he left his "servants" (slaves) to their own devices.
But it's overwhelmingly clear that the "nobleman" in the parable represents Jesus and/or God. The "return from the trip away" is obviously the Second Coming, and the well-behaved "servants" who are ordered to rob and kill are clearly the stand-ins for faithful Christians.
Jesus is saying, in so many words, that when he returns, he will order all True Christians to rob and murder all apostates, if not all unbelievers.
There you go, heddle. That's the NT--indeed, Jesus himself--saying "Kill. These. People." In so many words.
Posted by: Rieux | November 10, 2009 6:46 PM
So using the "logic" we're seeing in some of these arguments, Methodists should be locked up because of the milkman killer targeting innocent Amish, right? Right?
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 10, 2009 7:10 PM
Rieux,
Me too. I’ve been waiting for that one. And it is a parable. Just because you make a preemptive strike doesn’t mean that the explanation is wrong. The passage begins (in v. 11) by announcing that it is a parable. By their nature, a parable is not to be taken literally. Otherwise there would be no need to cast it as a parable. A parable is to be interpreted. A key to the interpretation is in v. 15, when the king returns, and then proceeds to judge and then his enemies are slain. Has Jesus returned?
Another hint that this was not meant to be taken literally is that there is no record of Jesus’ followers taking this lesson at face value and bringing unbelievers before Jesus to slay them. And, more importantly, there is no record of Jesus saying: C’mon guys, I told you bring my enemies and slay them before me, now where are they? Go get them.
No this parable is nothing more (most believe) than a representation of the creedal teaching: he shall return to judge the living and the dead.
Even if your interpretation is correct, come and talk to me about it when Jesus returns.
Of course, I can’t prevent you from claiming that this is a “clear” on-going teaching to kill unbelievers, neglecting a) that it is a parable and b) it didn’t happen when Jesus was still here, after the teaching, when enemies could have brought before him and slain—but I stand by the statement that this is qualitatively different from, for example, the plain language of Sura 2:191. (See #38.) How, by the way, is that spiritualized away?
By the way, I agree with the commentators who argue that this is not about the end of history at all, (the second coming) but about the events of AD 70.
Posted by: heddle | November 10, 2009 7:45 PM
Well, Heddle, the comment is about the second coming, which obviously hasn't happened yet. All you have to do is look at the Christian militia movements (the ones that have infiltrated the military) and see that there are Christians who are looking forward to obey that command. The whole lot of Rapture-Loving-Idiots are some seriously sick individuals.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 10, 2009 8:57 PM
Badger3k:
"The whole lot of Rapture-Loving-Idiots are some seriously sick individuals."
I'll save heddle a trip.
They are not TrueChristians™!
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2009 10:25 PM
But the fact that it's a parable does nothing whatsoever to remove the potency of Jesus' order to rob and kill.
Yes. Which means that True Christians(tm) need not wait for an actual "nobleman" to return from a trip abroad, and that this parable doesn't just apply to literal slaves. There's no indication that the robbing and killing are intended allegorically--and, more to the point, there's nothing in the actual story to stop a Christian fanatic from taking Jesus at his word--"Bring hither, and slay them before me."
Yes. And, given that this is theology we're talking about, it can be interpreted in any way anyone pleases. This verse is especially notable, though, because it contains a direct quote from Jesus himself commanding robbery and mass murder--there's little to no interpretation necessary.
What ludicrous straining at minutiae. There is no indication in the story that the precise chronology laid out there is mandatory. "[God] hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (II Corinthians 3:6.) And the spirit of that parable is obvious: Jesus commands Christians to rob and murder unbelievers.Second, one has to love that oblivious passive voice you're using. "His enemies are slain"? No. The faithful slaves massacre those enemies. You can stop burying the ugliness of that bloody story in linguistic sleight-of-hand now.
I can't imagine how you can think that Christians believe otherwise.First--hello?--Jesus's return to his disciples on Easter Sunday is described in great (albeit rampantly contradictory) detail in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, and I Corinthians 15. How anyone who purports to be a Bible-believing Christian can type the sentence "Has Jesus returned?"--implying that the answer is "no"!--is just hilarious.
Then, millions of people believe Jesus has returned more recently. Members of the Unification Church believe Sun Myung Moon is Jesus. Branch Davidians believe(d) that David Koresh was Jesus. Mormons believe Jesus "returned" after the events of the Gospels and traveled to North America. Seventh-Day Adventists believe Jesus "returned" spiritually to communicate with Ellen G. White--and plenty of other supposed communicators-with-Jesus have popped up to somewhat less success than White. Not to mention that countless unfortunate folks have seen Jesus "return" in patterns on tree bark, pancakes, and burnt toast.
Again, given the fact that theology has no rules, no boundaries, and no way to distinguish truth from bullshit, any of these (or nothing at all) is sufficient to get a sufficiently bloodthirsty Christian past your trivial hurdle. "Has Jesus returned?" Yes, obviously he has; or no, obviously that's only a metaphorical part of the parable. Either way, Jesus said "Kill unbelievers," so it's time to kill unbelievers.
Argument from ignorance. The historical record is absurdly fragmentary, and it's been expurgated madly by Christians over the past 2000 years; even if Jesus' disciples had tried something on the order of a mass killing, it's more than likely that we wouldn't even know it, especially if it was a pathetic failure. And, of course, even Christian "tradition" holds that lots of early Christians were "martyred" for evangelizing their faith--which is nicely self-serving, and a perfect cover for, say, executions of Christian fanatics who had tried to "slay" unbelievers.More likely is that the whole Luke 19 passage is a myth concocted decades after the "fact," and Jesus never said it at all. (Of course, the same fundamental doubt applies to every single passage in the Gospels. Given the paucity of historical evidence about anything Jesus ever said or did, it's hardly a good idea for a Christian of all people to be speaking in smug terms about what "there is no record of" in the extant histories of first-century C.E. Palestine. Very possibly the reason that no Christians attempted genocide in 30 C.E. is that Jesus is a fictional character who wasn't invented until several years later.)
But of course none of this--not the absence of evidence, not your lawyerly textual conniptions--does anything to get between a brutal, Bible-banging Christian and the unavoidable fact that his Savior explicitly said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
You demanded a New Testament passage that contains "a call for Christians to take the lives of non-Christians." Luke 19:27 contains just such a call. You declared that "there is simply no passage that calls for the killing of non-Christians"; Luke 19:27 proves you wrong, in Jesus' own words. You claimed that "In the Qur'an, and in the OT, you can find direct instruction for the righteous to kill infidels. But nowhere in the New Testament." Again, Luke 19:27 proves you wrong, and shows that your shot at Gingerbaker--that (s)he had "ignore[d], utterly, the facts"--actually applies to you. Finally, you declared that "In the Qu'ran and OT there are unambiguous commands: Kill. These. People. In the NT there are none." As Luke 19:27 shows, you're wrong. (Actually, John 15:6 refutes you too, despite your laughable attempts to dance around the fact. As if the absence of the specific subject "men" removes the horrendous violence prescribed in that verse!)
You demanded that we show you an explicit command in the New Testament for believers to kill unbelievers. I have done so. Your personal theological notions about the number of angels that "clearly" can't dance on the head of a pin are not a rebuttal, because no one waving theology around need pay the slightest attention to anything you have said. According to Luke, Jesus said "bring [my enemies] hither and slay them before me." For the purposes of this thread--and these "enemies"--that's all that matters.
Posted by: Rieux | November 11, 2009 2:28 AM
Modusoperandi:
That's brilliant. I wish I'd thought of that.And yet Heddle (like so many apologists) thinks that his airy treatises on theology somehow throw up impenetrable fences preventing the other billion Christians on the planet from interpreting passages like John 15:6 or Luke 19:27 to mean what they say.
All of this would be funnier if it weren't so bloody terrifying.
Posted by: Rieux | November 11, 2009 2:34 AM
Rieux,
No, that is hardly what matters--in fact it is a blatant quote mine. In putting it this way ("that's all that matters!") you conveniently omit that the words Jesus speaks here are the words of a character in a parable.
Parables are ripe for this sort of quote mine, since any sentence can be extracted, accurately attributed as "Jesus said," and then be taken literally:
This is a statement where Jesus is demanding forced conversions! That's all that matters!
Oh, and think of the mischief Wall Street bankers can have with something else Jesus said:
So if I had stated: Jesus never taught that dishonest managers should act shrewdly you could reply: Yes he did, here it is, Luke 16:8, he said it, that's all that matters.
Next we could move on to the parable of the ten virgins.
That fact that you took so many words and jumped through so many hoops (maybe his followers did attempt mass murder before him after his ressurection but it was not recorded) to interpret a parable as a literal command, something that violates all the accepted rules of exegesis when it comes to parables, makes my point. In this:
I have to go equally out of my way to interpret it as anything other than a command to kill infidels.
On one case: interpret the words of a character in a parable as a literal command of Jesus, well at least in this one sentence in this one of 40 of Jesus' parables, and let's attribute the lack of any attempt of the disciples to attempt to comply, literally, to this command as a hole in the historic record.
The other case: a straightforward command to kill unbelievers.
I submit you have demonstrated nothing other than the literal truth that while speaking the part of a character in a parable the words "bring my enemies before me and slay them" did in fact pass the lips of Jesus. Congratulations.
Posted by: heddle | November 11, 2009 5:14 AM
GB @7:
We also must not fall into the trap of thinking that all major religions have the same ratio of militant radicals. In many parts of the world, the Muslim population has a very substantial percentage of radical militants, according to to research published by the Pew group, defined as those who advocate suicide bombings as being justified in the defense of Islam.
And I think it is fair to say that Sharia law is not exactly aligned with democratic progressivism either. No matter how one slices it, Islam is not very supportive of Enlightenment values.
Absolutely. Couldn't have stated it better myself. Islam as widely practiced today is much more dangerous than Christianity as widely practiced today.
Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 7:46 AM
Ooops. In my previous comment, the paragraph that starts, "And I think it is fair...." is also Gingerbaker's. Sorry, put the close italics quote in too soon.
Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 7:48 AM
Rieux:
Nice try, but it's teh heddle you're dealing with. As it is true that heddle, who's one of the (NEW AND IMPROVED!!) "select" is one of the few True Christians--TM, it is also true that heddle is the only person who REALLY, REALLY knows what his imaginary friend, JESUS, said.
If you have not learned by now that heddle is more infallible than the pope, then I'm afraid that you--and most of the folks who comment here (along with most of the rest of the worlds past, present and unborn denizens)--will be doing the eternal backstroke in the Lake of Fire.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 7:59 AM
Rieux,
I think no such thing, jackass. And any fool can offer the cheap "and he always thinks he is right" argument. I consistently agreed and acknowledged that I could be wrong on any interpretation. But I’ll stand by the statement that if you think that John 15.6, about which 99 and 47/100 percent of any fair minded readers would say is a metaphorical reference to the ultimate fate of unbelievers, and the parable in Luke 19 are the clear commands for Christians to kill non-Christians, then you got nothing, and less than nothing when compared to what can be found in the OT or Qur'an.
Posted by: heddle | November 11, 2009 8:01 AM
I'm just curious Heddle, what does this "fairies on the head of a pin" argument matter when the reality is that Christianity has a long bloody history where "non-believers" were slaughtered, suppressed, and treated like second class citizens well into the 20th century? This sounds very much like a "no true Scotsman" argument where you insist that the Bible doesn't command any of this, or that Christians should really only follow the New Testament, which doesn't say any of this, but the reality is that Christianity, in the form of multiple denominations, HAS decided that the Bible DOES say this.
All three of the Abrahamic traditions come from the same place, contain, at their core, the same basic tribalistic and patriarchal beliefs. Christianity and Judaism were more open to the enlightenment, so they have a thin patina of reason and civility, but truly, at their core, they share the same brutal, hateful tendencies and have shown this to be the case for centuries. Personally I would argue that Judaism shows this less because they spent most of the last two thousand years as a minority religion. Now that they are the majority in Israel, you see the wild eyed crazy form resurface.
I'm sorry Heddle, Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery, murder, and genocide. You don't have to like it, but given that there are literally thousands of Christian denominations and (at least) dozens who insist that they know the literal meaning of the Bible, you can't claim what a passage says or means with any sort of authority.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 11, 2009 9:31 AM
dogmeatib,
So? I never said they didn't kill, enslave, etc., and I never said my interpretation was authoritative.
If your only conclusion from that is "they claim to use scripture, and you say they were wrong, so who is to say that you are right? Where is your authority?" then we have no place to go. But I would have though that a thinking person would go beyond that and ask--let's look at the scripture (even if I don't believe it) and see who uses it more self-consistently and reasonably. But if you want to stop at: you have no authority well, then that's just an argument stopper.
Furthermore the sub-thread here was limited to a discussion of whether or not Christians are commanded to kill non Christians. It wasn't another discussion on slavery, which I'm always willing to have. It was very limited.
And most of the justification for heinous acts of Christians comes from quoting the OT. Again, that is an interesting discussion and one that we have had many times--how binding is OT law on the Christian, but it is not this discussion.
This discussion began with the statement in #17
about which I claimed and claim: no worry; no such passage exists.
So again I ask, where is there any command to kill non-Christians. Is it in the OT? I would think it limited to the NT. What passages in the NT have been used to kill non-Christians? Were they co-opted or interpreted reasonably?--oh wait, that doesn't matter by your reasoning, because nobody has the authority to interpret scripture. As long as someone claims that is what scripture gives them license to do then game over man.
Posted by: heddle | November 11, 2009 10:12 AM
Democommie:
Oh, sure; this is not my first rodeo. But look, look, I've touched a nerve: "blatant quote mine"; "That's all that matters!"; "I think no such thing, jackass."Convincing Heddle he's wrong is not the point. Publicly feeding him his own words is.
According to you. (And defenders of Islam would unquestionably claim that the nasty verses you've picked out of the Qur'an are "quote mines" too, to equal relevance and effect.)Heddy baby:
Again, wake up: this is theology we're talking about. "That's a quote mine!" is a meaningless response to a Christian who has read the words of his own Savior commanding him to kill unbelievers.
You, this blog's foremost promoter of Calvinball, are in no position to proclaim that no one could ever play Calvinball "that way," and if they did they'd be wrong!
Indeed it is. Didn't you mean to be defending the New Testament?Your personal theological conniptions have not stopped two thousand years' worth of Christian theocratic brutality, based on precisely the scriptures you dismiss. As a result, said conniptions aren't relevant.
Uh... no, I merely showed the several levels of holes in your argument-from-ignorance. Taking the absence of historical record as telling evidence that early Christians didn't take Luke 19:27 to mean what it says requires you to assume a host of things that you have no basis for whatsoever.It did take "so many words" to point out the large number of presumptions you're pulling out of your ass. Try assuming less next time, and then you won't have to read through so much.
Yeah, sure--there's no brutality, no inhumanity in any of Jesus' other parables, or the other crazy shrieks he's recorded making in the Gospels. Uh-huh.
And you've demonstrated nothing other than that theology is the science of never being wrong. Which unfortunately shows that your defense is meaningless, because the myriad Christian thugs who have perpetrated theocratic violence in the past 2000 years were playing the theology game, too. Their "arguments" aren't required to make any more sense than yours are.You're not very good at this "show that religious people are wrong" thing; it turns all of your usual tactics against you.
Ah. "Fair-minded" readers. One might note that (to coin a phrase) any fool can offer the cheap "and honest and right-minded people agree with me" argument. (It's the ad verecundiam fallacy... if it's even true!)The main point here is that choosing the arena of theology means you have no basis to tell anyone (s)he is wrong about anything (s)he concludes. It's Calvinball; there are no rules, because there can be no basis for rules.
Even without a claim of divine warrant, though, the self-serving dishonesty of your reading of Luke 19:27 is obvious. "The ultimate fate of unbelievers"? No. That parable makes clear that it is the faithful servants who do the robbing and "slay"ing. That's not how any other account of "ultimate fate" (unless you want to count John 15:6--and you demonstrably don't) reads.
On its central and bloodiest point, it is not unclear what the story in Luke 19:12-27 means, despite your attempts to cloud it with hemming and hawing. As noted, two thousand years of brutal Christian theocrats don't even need to listen to your mewling objections, given that this is theology we're talking about; but even if they did, in the case of this passage, on objective terms, they clearly have a better case than you do.
Posted by: Rieux | November 11, 2009 10:38 AM
Demecommie, sub-saharan africa has had more then it's fair share of brutal civil wars, mass murder and rape. Usually "terrorism" is used for much milder levels of violence.
And Abby, it's obviously true that poor countries have more troubles with alot of things compared to richer countries, I'm from eastern europe so I know that personally. However, some countries have managed to pull themselves out of that hole - south korea may be the most obvious example of a country that was ranked the second poorest country in the world roughly 50-60 years ago.
Then you say we should try and understand why fundamentalist islam is attractive to some people. Do you really think there's anything like a clear reason on that? Wahhabism, which is to a large degree the fundamentalist philosophy responsible for Al Queda took over in Saudi Arabia but not in Algeria or Pakistan - why not? Or why did the mormons spread only to a certain population in the US? Why were the various sects of protestanism more or less successful? There are no clear and obvious reasons for any of this, and hence very little that can be consciously done for the underlying causes.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 11, 2009 10:46 AM
Heddle, what translation of the Quran are you using? I only ask because when I did a google search for Sura 2:191 the first link was this site on which the verse reads.
Which looks to me like permission for self defence not a blanket call to attack. See this interpretation lark is easy.
Posted by: Matty | November 11, 2009 10:58 AM
Coriolis:
"Demecommie, sub-saharan africa has had more then it's fair share of brutal civil wars, mass murder and rape. Usually "terrorism" is used for much milder levels of violence."
I'm not sure I grasp any real distinction between what was done in, for instance, Chad, and what was done in Ethiopia, The Congo or Rwanda. They were all forms of terrorism carried out by various means and with differently informed actors.
The Palestinians have said, on several occassions that what Israel does, in the indiscriminate bombing of their settlements and bulldozing of their infrastructure and homes is a form of terrorism. History, as always, is written by the winners.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 12:05 PM
Rieux,
Ah, you've begun distorting my name—that's always a sign of a winning argument! Next time try something like "muddle". That always works.
No, according to any reasonable definition of quote mine. You wrote, at the end of #64
You present it like a declaration. All that matters according to you is that Jesus said those words. No, it also matters how he said them. That fact is that it is Jesus speaking the part of a character in a parable would, to most people, be a relevant factoid. I'm confident that this would meet any reasonable person's definition of a quote mine.
No doubt. And maybe they are right. But I gave clear reasons why you quote mined—using the words of a character in a parable as a declarative binding statement. All you have is that "others would claim I quote mined too." If so, I hope they have more to rely on than your argument.
Go back and read my comment. I said that it was John 15:6 (not Luke 19:27) that was universally accepted to be a metaphorical statement about the ultimate fate of unbelievers. In fact I stated in an earlier comment that I personally thought the parable in Luke 19 alluded not to an ultimate judgment but rather the events of AD 70. But don't let the facts get in the way of your calling me dishonest.
Maybe, but not because of anything you have provided. You have not given them any argument to stand on. You have only demonstrated that you can quote mine a parable and treat it like a declaration. You have not said why, if the character in the parable said: "bring my enemies before me and slay them" that what the parable really means is that Jesus is saying, literally, "bring my enemies before me and slay them." You would think you would sense the need to offer just a wee explanation about why he bothered with the parable (which he says elsewhere is a device he likes to use to confuse unbelievers)—if it is, in effect, not a parable—even though the text itself (not a comment about the text) announces it as a parable. The announcement: This is a parable! would to most signify: do not take this literally! But you take it literally. That's the solid ground upon which you rest.
BTW, the same parable is offered in Matthew. At the end of that, Jesus instructs that the men take the worthless servant and cast him into the "outer darkness" (hell). Do you think that Christians are literally supposed to cast unproductive Christians into the outer darkness?
Matty,
I always use the one at UVa. I have no idea if it is a good translation or not.
Posted by: heddle | November 11, 2009 12:08 PM
We need to stop thinking of major religions as a single monolithic group.
Oh, come on and wake up. Every single member of each of these 'groups' puts his or her or the affiliated religious group's interpretation of this god entity above secular law, meaning ahead of first respecting human rights and dignity of personhood and then god's supposed wishes and commandments. That clear distinction separates people into two very distinct camps: faithists (and their apologists) and secularists. That's not a 'narrative' but the reality. And it's a reality that continues to protect and coddle and excuse the ongoing problem of religious extremism.
Posted by: tildeb | November 11, 2009 12:38 PM
I couldn't be bothered to follow the lengthy analysis of whether the TrueWordOfChrist encourages violence in the pre-hereafter or not but a perfunctory skimming (read: index on the PageDn button) almost gives me the impression that the general zeitgeist among this crowd is to find every conceivable excuse for Islam and every conceivable castigation of Christianity.
Now, that makes some sense of course being as we're engaged in a discussion with Christians and the culture from which we sprout is a Christian one that regards itself as sweet-smelling, pure and true while it regards Islam as incorrigibly evil to its core.
Except that we aint.
The pendulum, my friends, has swung.
Yes, there are a few Christ-bellowers still around somewhere or other in this country but a) not only are they in no way shape or form fundamentalist (in the traditional understanding of the word - heck, most of them even believe that Jews can go to heaven, nevermind other brands of Christian - and somewhere around a majority even believe that polytheistic Hindus can get there too) but they're also wholly irrelevant. The people who run this world within which we live are RightThinking Liberals whose beliefs are...well, the ones y'all are offering here.
When the truth is somewhere in the middle ("There are many different interpretations of the words 'Christianity' and 'Islam'" ; Christian texts are more rigorously violent that many Americans think they are and Islamic texts are less rigorously violent than many Americans think they are" , etc) then obviously, the impartial person's job is to move people closer toward the direction of the truth. the problem here is that a great many of you appear to be stuck in the 17th Century and imagine yourselves as brave Spinozas suffering in an attic.
We're in 21st Century America and our ideological forebearers already won hundreds of our successive battles over the past three hundred years. They won so much in fact that we - liberals - can be faced by a terrifying world of violence-prone fundamentalist Muslims and still reserve our venom for Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps!
For the love of Jesus Christ and his virgin mother Gneisha, get a compass and find your bearings. We're not in Kansas anymore and repeating the tired old trope of yesterday's scintillating battles is worse than useless, its dangerous to your very physical existence and to the future of the civilization that we, and our brave freethinking forebearers have built.
Selah.
mnuez
Posted by: mnuez | November 11, 2009 1:05 PM
"We're in 21st Century America and our ideological forebearers already won hundreds of our successive battles over the past three hundred years. They won so much in fact that we - liberals - can be faced by a terrifying world of violence-prone fundamentalist Muslims and still reserve our venom for Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps!"
A terrifying world full of violence prone fundamenalist Mualims? And you say other folks are having a problem with reality?
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 1:28 PM
Mnuez@79:
a perfunctory skimming...almost gives me the impression that the general zeitgeist among this crowd is to find every conceivable excuse for Islam and every conceivable castigation of Christianity.
Gee, you noticed that too, huh?
Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 1:32 PM
And, just like Adrienne, we ALL condemned all other faiths as being barbaric and backwards and their adherents to be stupid/crazed and murderous.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 2:04 PM
THAT is precisely the point Heddle. You can't be granted authority over the interpretation of a book any more than any of the others can. You are willing to point to passages in the Koran and claim definitively that they allow for or advocate violence but at the same time you are unwilling to accept that their are Christians who point to passages in the Bible and make the same claim that they are allowances for or commands for the same sort of violence.
See, from my point of view they are all collections of bronze and iron age tribal nonsense. But for those of you would believe that those books are special guidelines to truth and virtue, they not only have to be proper, the other books and/or interpretations have to be shown to be wrong (or at least less proper). Because of this you seem to have a major blind spot in your ability to see that your position is hypocritical. I am not saying that it is intentionally so, though I am not willing to rule that out either, I am simply pointing out that you bend over backwards to give your "magic book" the benefit of the doubt while at the same time claiming that the other guys "magic book" has bad mojo.
Honestly, it's rather silly.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 11, 2009 2:06 PM
we ALL condemned all other faiths as being barbaric and backwards and their adherents to be stupid/crazed and murderous.
Faith in the supernatural--something that is therefore unproveable and unmeasurable--is irrational.
To quote Twain, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Posted by: Adrienne | November 11, 2009 2:16 PM
Faith in the lottery is pretty silly too. But I've heard nothing from you about taking all of the folks who play the numbers out (or maybe just the ones who beat their wives, pimp out their kids or sell drugs to generate the money for wagering), covering them with bacon fat and having dogs lick it off.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2009 3:40 PM
I don't have time to sift the comments to see if these points have been made yet, but Ed, I can't believe you said this:
The problem with the Islams is that the more radical/fundamentalist KILL the others, with full Quranic backing.And what does the Quran say about you? 98:6:
What does the Quran call for Muslims to do about you? 9:5:So slaying people is "merciful" in Islam. Says it right there.Muslims will often cite peaceful verses to deflect criticism and give the impression that there are more Islams than there really are. What you don't know is that there is a long-established doctrine of naqsh, "abrogation", where the later suras replace contradictory earlier ones. (So much for the eternal, uncreated word of Allah!) The peaceful verses were usually written during Mohammed's Meccan period, when he had a small group of followers among a large number of skeptics. When he became ruler of Medina he also became a warlord, and the "revelations" became much more violent. Mohammed returned to Mecca as a conqueror, which tells you how the story ends.
And if you want something to make you shake your head in confusion, ask how the Suras of the Quran are ordered. This is important, because the later supercede the former... but that's not how they are numbered.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 11, 2009 11:04 PM
Three men were captured during the French revelation and sentenced to the guillotine, a priest, nobleman, and an engineer. The priest was first for the chop. When asked if he had a final request he said, “I wish to lie facing up so I may see the blade and show my contempt for it.” This was allowed and the priest took his place facing up. But when the executioner released the lever the blade fell but a foot and stopped.
The revolutionaries cried out, “It’s a sign from God! Let him go,” and they did. Next came the nobleman. He too requested to face up to show his contempt. Again the blade fell just a foot and the nobleman was likewise released. Finally it was the engineer’s turn.
“I too would like to face up,” he said. So he took his place like the others facing up. As the executioner reached for the lever a stillness fell over the crowed as they waited to see what would happen. Suddenly the engineer called out, “Well there’s your problem, there’s a knot in the rope...”
What’s the point of my (hopefully humorous) story? Engineers are taught to be troubleshooters. But unlike the poor sap that provided our punchline, people often ignore what they’ve been taught when it serves their own self interest. This includes religious teachings. Painting all Muslims as blind followers, the types of people who must point out the rope is knotted, ignores the reality that people do in fact have brains. Yes, even Muslims. What the Qur'an instructs is not nearly as important as the fact that it’s people reading it. It’s the people, not the book, that matter.
The Christian Bible says I'm an abomination that must be killed. Yet I get along fine with most Christians. I count many of them as dear friends I love and respect. I can say the same about a number of Jewish people, who are also commanded to kill me. Hold on to your pants, I even have Muslim friends as close as kin. All their holy books say I'm worse than worthless. Yet I am welcomed. I am respected. I am sought for advice and occasionally my lovely singing voice. We laugh, cry, fight, and make up, and almost never does religion even come up.
We can either make all of Islam an enemy, in which case their self-interest will be to fight us. Or we can welcome and work with the overwhelming majority of people who just want to live their lives in peace, same as we do.
To make a long story just a little longer than it has to be, when people feel they can only secure a future through conflict, radicalism increases. But when the path to prosperity is through friendship, over time attitudes tend to soften and those scary parts of holy books tend to get reinterpreted or ignored. Take a hard line against radicals if you must. Just be careful you're not creating more of them in the process.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 12, 2009 1:31 AM
Engineer-Pedant:
Thanks for the history lesson. Do those cherries you pick make nice pies?
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 4:07 AM
Abby Normal:
That's the problem with you gay people. Just because you and your sort are treated with disdain and contempt by so many people you think it's all right to turn around and treat others the sa-- Oh, wait, never mind.
Well said, sir, very well said.
Posted by: democommie | November 12, 2009 4:10 AM
Yeah, what Abby said. I'll just say something about EP's simpleminded worldview:
Muslims will often cite peaceful verses to deflect criticism and give the impression that there are more Islams than there really are.
Uh, no, Muslims don't just cite peaceful verses; they also cite the peaceful behavior of huge numbers of flesh-and-blood Muslims who don't actually, you know, obey all the violent stuff, or consider it useful or relevant in their present-day lives. Do I really have to remind you that there are over a BILLION Muslims on Earth today? That's billion with a "B". IF they all obeyed the violent commandments, the whole world -- with the possible exception of parts of China -- would be a chaotic flaming wreck. The fact that this is not happening proves that there are indeed "many Islams," whether or not simpletons like EP are capable of grasping this complex reality.
Guess what, enginner-boy -- people are more complex than abstract ideas and formulas indicate. This is where Marxism and modernist architecture failed; and this is where bigots like EP who think '"those people" are all the same' fail.
Posted by: Raging bee | November 12, 2009 11:30 AM
Here's another article describing how totally silly and off-track the whole "Islamic extremism" angle is WRT Hasan:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/11/12/hasan_coverage/index.html
Bottom line: this is just the latest in a long series of failures by the US Army and its medical "system." "Islam" (singular or plural) wasn't even a secondary cause of this latest fiasco. (Oh, and that story about Hasan shouting "god is great" has yet to be, you know, confirmed. Sort of like that "she said yes" story out of Columbine.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 12, 2009 5:51 PM
"We need to stop thinking of major religions as a single monolithic group. They simply don't fit that narrative."
Amen to that. I read in _Life_ magazine some time ago that there are or have been something like 20,000 sects in Christianity - roughly a new sect every month for every year since its inception. Clearly there's only one god - and it's a different god for everyone who believes!
Organized religion? Nope, it's thoroughly disorganized....
Posted by: IanW | November 13, 2009 7:42 AM
They were beheading people during the Lourdes sightings?
Posted by: Mr. B | November 13, 2009 7:57 AM
@Mr. B
Ha! I wouldn't put it past them. Those French love cutting off people’s heads almost as much as Muslims do. ;-)
Dyslexics Untie!
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 13, 2009 9:44 AM
I think people claiming that Christianity has been moderated by the Enlightenment while Islam has not are talking out of their arse. They really are only referring to the Christians that they have met, that they have known about.
Have they not heard of the Troubles in Northern Ireland? How Irish Nationalism mixed with Catholic-Protestant antagonism to cause the last terrorist events in the UK before Islamic terrorism reared its head?
Or what about the Catholic involvement in the Rwandan genocide?
Those are two examples.
Not to mention is it absurd to say that Islamic terrorism is all we need fear in the West. If you listen to the media maybe that's what you think. But it feels to me to be 50-50 (in the UK at least) between Islamic terrorists arrested, and far-right white nationalist terrorists.
Posted by: Alex | November 13, 2009 1:40 PM