Well, Christianity also has rules of war…the “just war theory”, which was most systematically laid out by Aquinas. A “just war” is a war that has just cause (such as self defense or to protect others from persecution), has been declared by a proper authority, possesses right intention (isn’t fought for personal gain), has a reasonable chance of success (don’t fight if you know you can’t win), and the end is proportional to the means used (if someone invades your land, you should take the land back, not annex their land).
Also, in war, it’s wrong to attack non-combattants and to use disproportionate force against an enemy, or to aim to destroy their infastructure or do things that would cause unneccesary suffering.
Why did the rioters in Nigeria react to a newspaper editorial by going on a murderous rampage?
As far as I know, it has little to do with Islam, but what do I know? Anway, please answer the question, I’m seriously interested in your and others response.
“Yes, there is a pretty widespread, even maybe systemic problem in the Islamic world right now,”
I don’t necessarily disagree with this but where I disagree is the idea that this has much to with Islam as compared to systemtatic problems with most Third World societies whether they are Islamic or not.
For instance I simply don’t see the evidence that Christian/Traditional Sub-Saharan Africa is any less violent than the Islamic world. The worst war-zone in the world, where millions are dying, is in Congo (AFAIK non-Muslim). This war was partly the result of the worst genocide of recent times also in non-Muslim(AFAIK) Rwanda (which Catholic priests have been accused of participating in).
So the question the West should be asking is not: how to transform Islam, not something that the West can do much about anyway, but how to encourage stable political institutions, competent government and economic growth something the West does know something about. Now it may be that Islam,in its present form, is a big barrier to such political institutions but I have yet to see the case been made. I suspect most Mulims are perfectly capable of seeing the advantage of competent government and economic growth without a “Reformation” or “Enlightenment”. The thing to do is to help them achieve those things.
But what about the advantages of a government which does not discriminate on the basis of religious faith, and does not “protect” Islam, the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad, etc. from “blasphemy”?
Another model is secular Turkey. Overwhelmingly Muslim, but fairly liberal and “western” ( in a religious sense, obviously they have a long ways to go in terms of dealing with dissident minority groups ). A religious party just won executive control, but only through a protest vote, they still only got 20% of the total vote at that, and they had to move well to the “center” to even achieve that much ( in the sense of jettisoning most of the hard-line elements and purely religious campaign points ). I don’t think democracy and Islam are necessarily incompatible.
Another “westernized” region, Bosnia, ultimately proved fallow ground for the Islamists as well. Despite strenuous efforts, they do not seem to have much luck in exporting their ideology to the Bosnian Muslims ( most of whom were actually the “sophisticated urbanites” of Bosnia pre-civil war, in contrast to the more rural Serb and Croat populations ).
I have similaar hopes. You can see a similar thought process at work in the republics of the former Soviet Central Asia. There they idea has been to inoculate against Islamism ( which presents a threat to the repressive regimes there even more immediate than it does to the west ) by government promotion of the spread of the Naqshbandi Sufi sect, a far more liberal and tolerant brand of Islam, that you might call the archenemy of Wahhabism ( the two groups truly loath one another ).
For a more homegrown version of the above, I’ll once again post this article on the struggle for social and political supremacy in post-war Lebanon, pitting a pacifist Sufi coalition against local Islamists: http://almashriq.hiof.no/ddc/projects/pspa/al-ahbash.html
milroyj:
Yes, I was being a little humorously facetious. But I quite frankly didn’t get your point, because I really do fail to see where people are refusing to debate this issue. It seems all we do is debate it. There has been no censorship or refusal to engage that I’ve seen. At least not on this board.
Short answer? Because they were ignorant fanatics. Possibly some were just thugs looking for an excuse to riot. Some were doubtless out to exact a little sectarian mayhem on rival religious/social communities as well. But the first point covers it reasonably well.
The slightly longer answer ( which I’m going to truncate a bit ), is that Nigeria is a flash point between rival cultures, religious, geographic and tribal. Like most of ex-colonial Africa it is an artificial creation - the north was a decaying conquest state, the ostensibly Muslim jihadist state of the Sultanate of Sokoto, which was in fact more a loose confederacy ( and incompletely converted ), embracing the ancient Muslim-pagan kindom of Kanem-Bornu and Hausaland with its multitude of city states ( some Muslim, some not ). The south was a hodgepodge of forest kingdoms ( Yoruba, Benin, Oyo ) and decentralized chieftaincies ( Ibo, Nri, Ijo ), both Christian and animist. The north was originally a separate protectorate ( the Protectorate of Northen Nigeria ) which was amalgamated with the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria ( itself formerly the separate Niger Coast Protectorate and Lagos Protectorate ) in 1914. It was a huge, but ungainly grouping, with no ethno-linguitic or religious consistency at all. The very ugly and bloody Biafra War in the immediate post-colonial era, in which the Ibo of the southeast attempted to secede, was just the first and most visible sign of this strain. The north/south split, though it never came to war, has been nearly as sharp ( indeed the Western and Eastern regions gained independance in 1957, two years before the North, because the North feared the better-educated South would dominate the government ). So social tensions have always ran very high, especially when you add in the impact of oil-wealth, enormous government corruption and intermittent dictatorships, and by far sub-Saharan Africa’s largest population.
Islam in the north had recently been reinvigorate by an old-fashioned jihadist revival in the early 19th century and that fantical fervor still burns here and there, plus they observe a particularly harsh school of Islamic jurisprudence ( which, as is common, has picked up plenty of purely cultural accretions, not all of them nice ). But the real tension has been just as much political and tribal. Nigeria is always a powderkeg waiting to go off, especially the last couple of years. In this atmosphere, appeals towards extremism are a little more palatable.
Does this relate to Islam? Absolutely. Does it relate to other local factors as well? Absolutely.
Buck - Islam does not discriminate on the basis of religious faith. In actual fact, the religious freedom of non-muslims is actually guaranteed and protected under Sharia (Islamic Law). Places of worship such as Churches and Synagogues are considered sacrosanct and are not to be harmed. Similarly, coersion or forced conversion of non-muslims is strictly forbidden. As far as pratection is concerned, why shouldn’t Islam have the right to defend itself from blasphemy? Obviously, violent riots and the murder of innocents are not the way to do it, but as previously mentioned, these acts are forbidden in Islam.
Kalt - You think that the only “real” Muslims are the violent ones, and that the moderate, peaceful ones are “fake” Muslims who aren’t properly following the teachings of Muhammad. So which teachings would these be? Can you provide a cite? Better yet, can you quote any Hadith that justifies the murder of innocents?
Tamerlane - Glad you joined in the debate. With my own hostorical and political knowledge sadly lacking, I was kinda hoping you would. I’d also love for ** Muslimguy** to join in. if there was anyone on the board who give give an authoritative and eloquent answer, it would be him.
Kalt - Islam expressly forbids the killing of innocents, as shown by these quotes from the Quran:
Anyone who kills any person without another soul being involved or causing mischief in the land, acts as if he had killed all mankind. Anyone who spares life acts as if he had granted life to all mankind. (5:30)
Allah only commands justice and the doing of good (16:90)
Do not take life—which Allah has made sacred—except for just cause.(17:33)
More to follow…
I did a little digging and came up with this info from Muslimguy’s excellent thread - I hope that no-one minds my repeating it here:
Two main points: 1) The Qur’an only authorizes defensive military action against attacking soldiers; 2) The Islamic law of war comes from the Prophet’s instructions to fight only soldiers on the battlefield, to never harm noncombatants or the environment. These terrorist guys have been breaking so many Islamic laws all over the place, it ain’t funny.
The Prophet was not only a man of wisdom, he had a lot of common sense, too. He wasn’t after conquering territory, he sought to win hearts and minds. It’s common sense to know you don’t persuade people by hurting them; you win them through affection and kindness. He didn’t want to fight, he fought only to survive because the little Muslim community at the beginning was in danger of being totally wiped out. He never initiated aggression, but tried to present Islam peacefully and was attacked for it.
For the first 14 or 15 years, he never fought at all, even though there were persecutions, murders, and assassination attempts against the Muslims. When they did take up arms, it was only defensive. When Muhammad finally returned to Mecca and took over, he used diplomacy and the city opened peacefully to him with no fighting or bloodshed. He gave general amnesty to all his former enemies and took no revenge. When Muslims retook Jerusalem after the First Crusade, likewise they allowed Christians and Jews to live there in peace as they always had and took no revenge.
Finally, one more quote illustrating the general attitude of Islam towards Judaism and Christianity:
Prophet Muhammad did not bring Islam as a new religion, but as a restoration of the same religion as the Hebrew prophets. Therefore he tried to work out a commonality that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could all share while respecting each other’s differences.
SAY: “People of the Book, [let us] rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you, that we shall worship only God [Alone] and associate nothing else with Him, nor shall any of us take on others as lords instead of God.” If they should turn away, then say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:64)
First, let me say that **Tamerlane, ** I can see you’ve been quite busy since I last poked my head into this thread, and kudos to you for that.
However, in former Soviet Central Asia, especially in Uzbekistan, local governments have been rather heavy-handed in their attempts to control what kinds of religious groups are able to operate freely there in recent years. Islamic religious figures have been jailed, and various groups have been denied the required permission to register with the state and/or banned outright. Religious groups have been restricted in their participation in political life.
Given what’s going on in some other parts of Central Asia, there may indeed be noble motivations behind such restrictions and harrassment. It still makes me very nervous, though, as there’s not much history of democratic behavior in that neck of the woods, and IMO it will require a very careful balancing act to keep the situation from backfiring and creating a hardcore Islamic resistance.
“Islam does not discriminate on the basis of religious faith”
Well Tamerlane will probably discuss this issue in detail, but I don’t think this is true. My understanding is that while Chrisitians and Jews did have a certain status they have generally been second-class citizens in most Muslim societies and were sometimes severely persecuted. And followers of other religions like HIndus and Buddhists have generally got it worse.
In any case my answer to Buckner is that IMO some of these things will have to wait till after the Muslim world is more economically developed with a larger middle class and higher levels of education. Even then the Muslim world may never choose to adopt American style “SOCAS”. Of course the West can quietly try to promote its values and especially try to prevent Taliban-style extremism which harms the process of development.
BTW an aside: why does everyone keep talking about a “Reformation” ?. Didn’t the Reformation increase the amount of religious violence and fanaticism for at least a hundred years? I don’t think that the St Bartholomew Massacre and the 30 years war is quite what the doctor ordered for the Islamic world.
Yes. I do not disagree that there are violent people in all religions. However, from my studies of Christianity and Judaism as well as other major religions, I have never seen instruction by God to commit violence against fellow humans. Of course there were wars and such in the narratives but I think it is fairly clear that God was not directing us to be violent but to be obedient. (I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion about all religions).
But I believe we have valid reason to look at Islam as a particularly violent religion. For example, when the Muslim hordes invaded Egypt they gave the Christians who were living there (my ancestors) three options:
Convert to Islam
Make a payment to live (there is a term for these payments in the Koran I can’t recall)
Die
The Coptic Christians in Egypt, then, are the ancestors of the Christians who were able to make payment to remain Christian. What is most disgusting about this chapter in history is that Mohammed specifically instructed Muslims to behave in that way. The invading Muslim hordes were following Islam properly. Also, the choice that was given to us is generaly reserved for the “peoples of the book,” that is the Jews and Christians. If you were not Christian or Jewish, your fate would be much harsher.
To this day, violence by Muslims, in accordance with the Koran, still takes place in Egypt (as well as many parts of the Muslim world. I just happen to be more familiar with the Egyptian situation). We had a visiting priest here in Tallahassee who had been transferred from a small village in Egypt by the Pope. In this village, the Muslims murdered and raped our congregation. The entire village was in chaos. The priest was given a gun to defend his congregation to and from church although I’m certain he wouldn’t have known how to shoot it.
Similar violence against Christians is occuring is Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, where there are sister churches to my church. What continues to amaze me is that Americans do not want to acknowledge Islam for what it is, a religion that calls for violence against non-believers and that calls for forced conversions. (let’s not even open up the concept of “temporary marriages” that’s in the Koran).
I have always respected Americans for their tolerance of other religions and other belief systems. However, this defense of Islam is an example of our naivette. For example, I believe that Hinduism is wrong (according to my beliefs), but I do not consider it a violent religion although some practitioners are violent. I do not recall having ever seen a call to violence in Hindu scriptures. But there are repeated calls to violence in the Koran.
I would like to point out that in the early, non-violent years of Islam, there was no growth in the religion. It wasn’t until Mohammed took a military track that Islam spread, from Morocco to the Chinese border. And this all happened in an unbelievably short period of time.
Give not way therefore to the Infidels, but by means of this Koran strive against them with a mighty strife. 25:54
Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous. 9:124
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever you shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way. 9:5
Hmmm…Seems Osama might actually be following the Koran…Hmmm…
The term is Jizyah. Non-Muslims pay it instead of military service. What’s ironic, actually, is, when the Muslims moved into some parts of the Byzantine Empire (including Egypt, I think), the inhabitants didn’t mind paying the tax, because it was lower than the taxes that the old government had imposed on them.
. “However, from my studies of Christianity and Judaism as well as other major religions, I have never seen instruction by God to commit violence against fellow humans. Of course there were wars and such in the narratives but I think it is fairly clear that God was not directing us to be violent but to be obedient”
God clearly instructs the Israelites to commit genocide in the OT. I am not sure that there is a meaningful distinction between being obedient and violent when the orders are to commit violence.
As for contemporary violence as I keep repeating Christians in poorer countries are often very violent ,most notably in Serbia and Rwanda. In the latter Catholic priests have even been accused of participating in genocide.
“I do not recall having ever seen a call to violence in Hindu scriptures”
You clearly don’t know much about Hinduism. The Vedas have many passages promoting violence against the indigenous people who later became the lower castes.
AFAIK the only major religion that has virtually no calls to violence in its main texts is Buddhism
Then you should also be aware that the extreme fringe that is perpetrating these attacks is also attacking Muslims that don’t meet the fringe’s expectations and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Egypt are not out raping and murdering all the Christians. (You will also have to demonstrate that the attacks are “in accordance with the Koran” since we have already seen evidence that they are not.) The extremists are actually being hunted down by the (predominantly Muslim) Egyprian government, so broad claims that they are being “true” Muslims would seem to be, at best, a great exaggeration.
BTW, while your quote of 9:124 would appear to be a call to offensive attack (that I will have to look up), your quotation of 25:54 is clearly defensive in nature and your quotation of 9:5 is a reference to apostates, not to people who were never Muslim. (I don’t countenance the call to kill apostates, but then I never approved of burning heretics, either.)
I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about Hinduism to have made a comment on it regarding this OP (my studies on it have been general).
But my point is that if an unbiased observer were to take a detached look at all the religions of the world he/she would see that Islam has a still-standing call to violence against non-believers.
There are, of course, many incidents of violence in all religious histories and in their scriptires, and many adherents interpret these incidents as they wish. But there is a difference in Islam since Mohammed and Allah both call on Muslims to fight (in the violent sense) non-believers in clear and uncertain terms.
kalt my love, i’m afraid you are seriously deluding yourself if you believe that ALL terrorists are muslim.
the terrorists i spend my childhood in fear of were all christian.
there are some lovely muslims in my class in college. i’m not scared of them. not at all.
why would i be?
they’re nice people.
i have to say that every time i read a post like yours i can understand a little bit more why some people feel they are fighting a holy war against enemies of the prophet.