This distinction is important because if the West is not careful to maintain ties with those Muslims who have integrated themselves with our society there's a very real risk that they will do what history shows us *all* persecuted groups do:
go back to their roots and cling ever-tighter to their beliefs-- which in this case would mean we'd see a large number of Western Muslims (who are, theologically speaking, often following a watered-down version of original Islamic doctrine) migrating back to a Classical understanding of their faith and (as a natural consequence) siding with ISIS and their ilk.
Yes, and lets not forget the context there. In Muhammad 's day, being free to practice your own religion in your own way was not a thing. Violence was required to be free, and so that's what was preached.
Those that say that Islam is fundamentally a violent religion and therefore all Muslims are on team Jihad is ludicrous. Their method of practicing religion has moderated over the millennia just like others.
If the West bungles this then it could very easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby persecution of "those terrorists" leads to otherwise peaceful/moderate people becoming exactly that: terrorists. :V
Tynite is correct: much careful thought and prayer is needed. Additionally, a balance between facing the hard truths (ISIS *is* acting within orthodox Islamic doctrine) and dealing with said truths lovingly (just bc your neighbour is a Muslim doesn't automatically make them evil or an ISIS collaborator). Truth seasoned with Grace, iirc the old formula. :)
Actually, not really. In M's day there was a large swath of minor religions/cults throughout much of that region. M himself was able to spend his time in Mecca preaching (and gaining ~300 followers over that 13 year period) without much interference from others
a) I *do* say that Islam is fundamentally a violent religion; simply because there is no other conclusion one can come to when you consider that the majority of the peaceful verses were written first (in Mecca, when M was essentially a preacher), the majority of the violent verses were
written later (in Medina, when M was essentially a warlord), and that the Koran employs a method of abrogation where, should there be any conflict between two verses, the later verse succeeds/replaces the older verse.
People may quibble and twist on it, but taking a hardnosed look at the doctrine there's no legitimate, textually excusable way to ignore passages like Surah 9:14 (essentially-- "Kill the unbelievers") and
Surah 8:13-17 (essentially-- "I, God, will terrify and then butcher the unbelievers"); 'least, not that I've found, and I've been looking at Islamic texts (incl, but not limited to, the Koran) for the past 3-4 years now.
Admittedly 3-4 years is a comparatively short time to the one-and-a-half decades I've been seriously studying Christian theology, but I'd like to think that skills of careful, critical, textual analysis are transferable between texts.
b) I *strongly* disagree with the conclusion that "and therefore all Muslims are on team Jihad". The practice of the Islamic faith in the West (as well as some smatterings elsewhere) *has* been moderated over the years from when it was first conceptualised, you're absolutely correct.
However, this *doesn't* mean that the texts themselves have grown more moderate. This is why I personally maintain a strict distinction between "Western" Islam and "Classical" Islam.
The first is the faith-practice demonstrated by many Muslims in the West who (through a gradual process of pragmatic adjustment) have come to selectively apply/attend to some parts of their holy texts (i.e. those that allow them to get on well with their Western neighbours) and ignore other parts (i.e. those that might make it difficult for them to continue to live peaceably with their neighbours).
The second is the faith-practice demonstrated by ISIS and many other "radical" Muslims who have chosen to take a very fundamentalist approach to their holy texts and, as a result, are trying their darnedest to "live like the Prophet did" and kill/loot/etc those they meet who refuse to join their gang.
tl;dr I realise that, on the face of it, it sounds rather hater-ish to say "Islam is fundamentally a violent religion"; but imho this is only because people miss the part where the _people_ are =/= the _religion_.
Islam *is* evil, in its core doctrine; but Muslims, like people of all other cultures and creeds, are a diverse bunch some of whom are of the horrible persuasion, and some of whom are truly decent human beings. :)
1) Actually, whether or not a reading of Leviticus painted Catholicism as peaceful is irreverent to whether or not Islam is/isn't violent at its core. Fascinating as comparative study of religion is (srsly, theology is my chief gig/bent), looking at religion B when we're trying to assess religion A _on its own merits_ is actually just a distraction. <3
2) Leviticus actually functions differently for Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) as compared to how it functions for Judaism; meaning that you can't read it the same way for the two religions.
For Judaism, Leviticus details the covenant between God and his people. For Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole-- I'll keep making this distinction bc Catholicism is merely one strand/flavour of the broader Christian faith; more on that in point #3), Leviticus
details the OLD covenant between God and his people prior to the NEW covenant that was established between God and the whole of humanity (incl. his people, the Israelites) through the birth, death, and resurrection of Yeshua bar Yoseph (Jesus).
In effect, when reading Leviticus from a Catholic (or, more generally, from a Christian) perspective you need to take into account the whole of the NT *in addition* to the OT.
The OT is vital for painting a picture of God's character and motivations, but unless its read in the light of the NT then whatever you're reading isn't Christianity; its pre-Christ Judaism.
Thus, the violence of the OT must be filtered through the peace of the NT; unlike, if I may politely point out, Islamic doctrine where the peace of the earlier Mecca portions must be filtered through the violence of the later Medina portions.
3) Saying "Catholicism", rather than "Christianity" is an interesting move. I say this because, as a point of interest, of the three main branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) Catholicism has, historically, generally had the more dubious stance on questions of interpretations and doctrine as compared
to the branch it splintered from (the Church Orthodox) or the branch that rebelled against it (the Church Protestant). This due in part to the (often heavy) involvement with secular politics that the Church Catholic has engaged in over the centuries; but it's also partially due (imho)
to their creation of the position of Pope and the surrounding doctrine that allows a single man to, effectively, "speak for God" (which is silly, bc the original reason the Pope became infallible was bc the Pope at the time was sick of being at loggerheads with the council of bishops and
pulled a swiftie allowing him to speak with the apparent authority of God-- thereby quashing any objections to him doing things his way). Ofc, none of my personal quibbles should make out that Catholics are =/= Christian; just more that they are merely one of a few strands of Christianity that together make up "the Church".
Apologies for the WoT (huehuehue), I did my best to be succinct, but some of these topics are tremendously curly, and hence need a good deal of "going into" just so you can extract a single lucid point from them.
Hey, thank you for that! I am familiar with the religions, but was not so much with the knowledge that later writings were meant to supercede earlier ones in canon. I had just assumed that those contradictions were still canon, but up to interpretation, much as the old and new testaments work.
That said, though, I certainly didn't mean to convey a "but what about Catholicism?" line of thinking. I invoke that to help those that are often enclosed in their own wall of religion to see beyond that wall.
Many religions have violent passages about killing other groups, but there is context to consider, or as you state, Westernization. In the modern context, "killing infidels" is counterproductive and dangerous.
But, in the times those were written, it made much more sense. It is import an that we now read these religious texts for inspiration in how to carry ourselves and live a good life, without internalizing the part about hanging adultresses up and stoning them, for example.
If we look at these books as collections of stories with morals to be learned, they are great guides on how to improve oneself. If we instead read them as a list of literal guidelines, we become intolerant murderers.
I believe that group contains virtually all Muslims. Of the the hundreds of millions of them, if not more, the jihadists measure in the thousands, at most, I would imagine.
Unfortunately, though, for those that feel that way, it is not hard to see why. They live brutal lives with no prospects for peaceful improvement to their situation.
The word for them looks much like it did to "Muhammed the warrior", and they seek to emulate that. In their minds, we validate that thinking when we do things that they perceive as hostile or oppressive.
I don't want to get into the whole foreign policy aspect of this too much, but I can see how a provincial group of Muslims could see foreign troops as invading infidels and react the way they do, especially when there are "religious leaders" using it to whip these folks into a frenzy to swell their ranks.
Visit the Beginner's Box
Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.
Comments on Profile Post by Tynite