Conflating
History with Theology
Judeo-Christian
Violence vs. Islamic Violence
by Raymond
Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
March 15, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2105/judeo-christian-violence-vs-islamic-violence
Especially after the terrorist strikes of 9/11, Islam has
often been accused of being intrinsically violent. Many point to the Koran
and other Islamic scriptures and texts as proof that violence and
intolerance vis-à-vis non-Muslims is inherent to Islam. In response, a
number of apologetics have
been offered. The fundamental premise of almost all of these is that
Islam's purported violence—as found in Islamic scriptures and history—is
no different than the violence committed by other religious groups
throughout history and as recorded in their scriptures, such as Jews and
Christians. The argument, in short, is that it is not Islam per se but
rather human nature that is prone to violence.
So whenever the argument is made that the Koran as well as
the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad and his
companions evince violence and intolerance, the counter-argument is
immediately made: What about the historical atrocities committed by the
Hebrews in years gone by and as recorded in their scriptures (AKA, the Old
Testament)? What about the brutal cycle of violence Christians have
committed in the name of their faith against both fellow Christians and
non-Christians?
Several examples are then offered from the Bible as well as
Judeo-Christian history. Two examples especially—one biblical, the other
historic—are often cited as paradigmatic of the religious violence
inherent to both Judaism and Christianity and usually put an end to the
debate of whether Islam is unique in regards to its teachings and
violence.
The first is the military conquest of the land of Canaan by
the Hebrews (c. 1200 BC), which has increasingly come to be characterized
as a "genocide." Yahweh told Moses:
But of the cities of these peoples which Yahweh your God
gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain
alive, but you shall utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite,
Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—just as Yahweh your God has
commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their
abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against
Yahweh your God (Deuteronomy 20: 16-18).
So Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the
mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness
slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly
destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel had commanded
(Joshua 10:40).
The second example revolves around the Crusader wars waged
by Medieval European Christians. To be sure, the Crusades were a
"counter-attack" on Islam—not an unprovoked assault as is often depicted
by revisionist history. A united Christendom sought to annex the Holy Land
of Jerusalem, which, prior to its conquest by Islam in the 7th century,
was an integral part of Christendom for nearly 400 years.
Moreover, Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians
were on the rise in the decades before the Crusades were launched in 1096.
For example, in 1071, the Seljuk Turks had crushed the Byzantines in the
pivotal battle of Manzikert and in effect annexed a major chunk of
Byzantine Anatolia (opening the way for the eventual capture of
Constantinople centuries later). A few decades earlier, the Fatimid caliph
al-Hakim desecrated and destroyed a number of important churches—such as
the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem—and decreed several even more oppressive than usual decrees
against Christians and Jews. It is in this backdrop that Pope Urban called
for the Crusades:
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of
Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has
been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the
Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks]…has invaded the lands of those Christians
and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away
a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed
by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God
or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion (from the
chronicles of Robert the Monk).
Nonetheless, history attests that these Crusades were
violent and bloody. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, the
Crusaders slaughtered almost every single inhabitant of the Holy City.
According to the Medieval chronicle, the Gesta Danorum "the slaughter was
so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles." Moreover, there
is the 1204 sack of Constantinople, wherein Crusader slew Christian.
In light of the above—one a prime example of "Hebraic"
violence from the Bible, the other from Christian history—why should Islam
be the one religion always characterized as intrinsically violent, simply
because its holy book and its history also contain violence?
Why should non-Muslims always point to the Koran and ancient history as
evidence of Islam's violence while never looking to their own scriptures
and history?
While such questions are popular, they reveal a great deal
of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of
men and what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The
fundamental error being that Judeo-Christian history—which is
violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands
violence. Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence
and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by
God or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important
question.
Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point.
Yahweh clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and
surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's
will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by
the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It
happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and
place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such
violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e.,
the Halakha).
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to
the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in
history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in
Islamic law (i.e., Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the
violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate
significance is theological, or, more specifically, doctrinal.
Consider the following Koranic verses, better known as the
"sword-verses":
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the
pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and
prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship
and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free.
Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (K 9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor
hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
[i.e. do not adhere to Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of
Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and
Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel
themselves utterly subdued (K 9:29).
As with Old Testament verses where Yahweh commanded the
Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a
historical context. Allah first issued these commandments after the
Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had grown sufficiently strong enough
to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose
verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the sword-verses became
fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the "people of the
book" (Christians and Jews) and the "pagans" (Hindus, Buddhists, animists,
etc). For instance, based on 9:5, Islamic law mandates that pagans and
polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed, while 9:29 is the
primary source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against
Christians and Jews.
In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless
other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam's
scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all
reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is
to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes
the latter. (It is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the
sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's
relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of
the Koran's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "there is no
coercion in religion" 2:256.) Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who is
revered in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the
notion that jihad is "defensive" warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a
religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and
the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by
force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and
the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes
of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among
their own people. That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua
remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a "caliphate"]. Their
only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the
nations]… But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations
(The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473).
Perhaps what is most unique about the sword-verses is the
fact that when juxtaposed to their Old Testament counterparts, they are
especially distinct for using language that transcends time and space,
inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than
yesterday. Yahweh commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted
to a specific time and place. At no time did Yahweh give an open-ended
command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to
fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam's original
enemies were, like Judaism's, historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and
pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names.
Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the
book—"until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves
utterly subdued" (Koran 9:29) and to "slay the pagans wherever you find
them" (Koran 9:5).
The two conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever"
(haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these
commandments: there are still "people of the book" who have yet to
be "utterly subdued" (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and
"pagans" to be slain "wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent
commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature:
"Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no more chaos and all
religion belongs to Allah" (Koran 8:39). Also, in a well-attested
tradition that appears in the most authentic hadith collections, Muhammad
proclaims:
I have been commanded to wage war against mankind
until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and that they establish prostration
prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so,
their blood and property are protected [Sahih Muslim C9B1N31; also in
Sahih Bukhari B2N24].
Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad's pattern
of behavior—his "Sunna" or "example"—is an extremely important source of
legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all
walks of life: "You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful
pattern [of conduct]" (Koran 33:21). And Muhammad's pattern of conduct
vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the
concept of "moderate" Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half
the Arab-Islamic world's support per an al-Jazeera poll, portrays the
prophet's Sunna thus:
"Moderation" is demonstrated by our prophet who did not
remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a
raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their
strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women"
(from The Al-Qaeda Reader, page 56).
In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad's Sunna,
pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing
their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33,
33:50, etc.). And the concept of "Sunna"—which is what 90% of the billion
plus Muslims, the "Sunnis," are named after—essentially asserts that
anything performed or approved by Muhammad and his early companions is
applicable for Muslims today no less than yesterday. This does not mean
that Muslims in mass are wild hedonists who live only to plunder and rape.
But it does mean that those particular persons who are naturally inclined
to such activities, and who also happen to be Muslim, can—and do—quite
easily justify their actions by referring to the "Sunna of the
Prophet"—the way al-Qaeda, for example, justifies its attacks on 9/11
where innocents, including women and children, were killed: Muhammad
authorized his followers to use catapults during their siege of the town
of Taif in 630 A.D., though he was aware that women and children were
sheltered there. Also, when asked if it was permissible to launch night
raids or set fire to the fortifications of the infidels if women and
children were among them, the prophet is said to have responded, "They are
from among them" (Sahih Muslim B19N4321).
While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such
equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though
recorded in the Old Testament, never went on to be part of Jewish law.
Neither Abraham's "white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses'
short-fuse, nor David's adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on
to instruct Jews or Christians. They were merely understood to be
historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by
God for their less than ideal behavior.
As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was
abrogated by Jesus. "Eye for an eye" gave way to "turn the other cheek."
Totally loving God and one's neighbor became supreme law (Matt 22:38-40).
Furthermore, Jesus' "Sunna"—as in "What would Jesus do?"—is characterized
by altruism. The New Testament contains absolutely no exhortations to
violence. Still, there are some who strive to portray Jesus as having a
similar militant ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where Jesus—who
"spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not"
(Matt 13:34)—said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword" (Matt 10:34).
But based on the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not
commanding violence against non-Christians, but was predicting that strife
will often exist between Christian converts and their environment—a
prediction that was only too true as early Christians, far from taking up
the sword, passively perished by the sword in martyrdom (as they still do
today in many Muslim nations). At any rate, how can one honestly compare
this one New Testament verse that metaphorically mentions the word "sword"
to the literally hundreds of Koranic injunctions and statements by
Muhammad that clearly command Muslims to take up a very real sword against
non-Muslims?
And it is from here that one can best appreciate the
Crusades. However one interprets these wars—as offensive or defensive,
just or unjust—it is evident that they were not based on the "Sunna" of
Jesus, who exhorted his followers to "love your enemies, bless those who
curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who
spitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt 5:44).
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to
Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what
the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that, irrespective of
religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called "Christian"
Crusades, despite them—man is in fact predisposed to violence and
intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians
behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who
hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims
who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further validated by
the Deity's command to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?
Related Topics: History, Islam |
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment