One frequently hears the disinformation and lies from people like Bishop Spong and others about how 'fundalmentalist Christians are a terroristic threat'. One must first ask what do these people have as an agenda, truth or promoting their own cause? Spong is relatively widely known as a 'alleged' Christian who takes little of the Bible at reasonable face-value. Let's examine the facts on this question: Can fundamentalist Christians be compared to Islamic fundamentalists?
Are Christians and their scriptures no different than Muslim terrorists and others who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies? What can we say in light of our own dark Church history and also graphic passages found in portions of the Old Testament that do not seem to cast any better light on the roots and actions of our own faith tradition? The following are some of my reflections on these questions.
Christians who use violence in the name of God to destroy their enemies have no justification for their actions from Jesus Christ, his life and teachings as found in the New Testament. Whereas, Muslims who are engaged in violence and destruction of anyone who opposes Islam, have ample justification for their actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammad. Suffice it to say that it is beyond doubt that the prophet of Islam did encourage the killing and intimidation of his enemies, not just in self defense as it is commonly reported by Muslims, but in the promotion of the cause of God and the spread of Islam. Needles to say, the actions of the prophet were in direct contradiction to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ and his disciples. So the point is not that Christians have never resorted to violence and other horrible atrocities. They have indeed committed many horrible acts, but when they have done this, they have betrayed the very person that they claim to follow. But when Muslims commit such acts, they can in fact claim that they are following the example of their prophet and thus fulfilling the will of God and promoting His cause. That, certainly, is a big difference!
When we turn our attention to the Old Testamet and look at passages that are found in the book of Joshua regarding the extermination of the Canaanites living in the land, we can still notice a dramatic difference in those passages and the events in the early history of Islam. The primary theme in those accounts is the issue of God's holiness. Even hundreds of years before the invasion of Canaan, God had told Abraham that the sins of the people living in the land had not reached its limit, but when the inhabitants had defiled the land to its limit, the land was going to "throw them up." In fact, God later warned the nation of Israel to be careful in not repeating the sins of the previous people, otherwise the land was going to throw them up too. So we see that God is using Israel as an instrument of His justice to purge the land of its sinfulness and later in history God used other nations like the Assyrians and the Babylonians as His instruments to cleanse the land by destroying the people of Israel for their sinfulness.
However, when one reads the early accounts of prophet Muhammad's raids and wars, not only one sees no mention of the theme of divine holiness and its opposition to sin, but the primary motivations that one constantly encounters are the looting of the enemies and the obtaining of booty and the spoils of war or the relief and pleasures of Paradise or conquering the enemies and spreading the rule of the prophet. I am not just repeating an old stereotypical charge against Islam. There is the most ancient Muslim biography of prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era (translated by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955). I truly encourage all Muslims and non-Muslims to read this book to see for themselves the violence in the actions of prophet Muhammad and his early followers.
Another important point that we need to keep in mind is the fact that the divine command for the destruction of the few cities of Canaan, was for a specific people, a specific time and place and a specific purpose. Nowhere in the later Old Testament period do we see God commanding the nation of Israel to go and attack other pagan nations, either as self-defense or as a way to promote faith in the true God of heaven and earth. However, in the Qur'an, we encounter general commands to kill and destroy the enemies of Islam that are applicable for all times and places and people groups. It is beyond dispute that from the earliest times, right after the death of the prophet, Muslim splinter groups began fighting, killing and assassinating even each other, in the name of God. The history of Islam, down to the present day is filled with the appeals of various Muslims to ever-applicable Qur'anic passages to destroy and kill their enemies.
Muslims generally believe that since Islam is the final great monotheistic religion, it is superior in every respect to Judaism and Christianity. Students were always told that Judaism was like elementary school, Christianity was like high school and Islam is like university. Each religion was from God, but each one became progressively higher and better. Now the question that we must ask is this, how can Islam claim to have a superior ethics to the New Testament, and yet resort back to the use and justification of violence, elements that were supposedly part of the early Jewish tradition? It seems that Islam not only has NOT improved on the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament in regard to the use of force, but that in fact Islam has gone back many steps in this regard.
Here is the text of the message the Prophet Mohammad sent to the Julanda brothers through the intermediary of his Messengers, 'Amr bin al-'As al-Sahmi and Abu Zaid al-Ansari.
"Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom."
The historian al-Baladhuri, writing barely two and half centuries after the coming of the Messengers to Sohar, described the event in these terms:
"When the people of Oman shall have responded to the evidence of truth and shall have promised obedience to God and His prophet, then Amr, their Amir, and Abu Zayid would be made responsible for conducting the prayers, for conveying Islam to the people and for teaching them the Quran and the precepts of the religion."
Muslims in the West often claim that Islam stands for "no compulsion in religion". Is not the sunna of their own prophet contradicting them? This is where we get the phrase, "Sunni" muslims. Iran is primarily "Shiiite" and opposed to the former in many political squabbles. An example is the Iran-Iraq war.
There are many issues one needs to look at when evaluating the character of a person. There is no doubt that Muhammad had also a great many good traits and achieved important reforms in Arabia that were for the good. The claim, however, is not only that he is a reformer, but that he is the spokesman for God and the model for mankind and as such the standard is put higher and we need to look at all he does not only the positive features that are emphasized by the Muslims in their books, speeches and web sites.
One of the most telling observations about the character of people is how they deal with their enemies. When we are put under pressure by being challenged and questioned, then our real character and personality is revealed that might easily be hidden when everything is under control.
The flawless character of Muhammad is often used as evidence for him being the prophet of God and his message, the Qur'an, to be the very word of God.
The following are names of people whose execution was suggested, requested or ordered by Muhammad. (Jesus never had such a list!) Many of them were assassinated, some got away for reasons of unforeseen circumstances. But deeds are judged by intention and the intention or request for assassination is serious in itself.
There are also acceptable judgements by Muhammad after a proper trial. It might help to point those out for contrast and to better understand what exactly is reprehensible in the other cases.
Ka`b bin al-Ashraf
Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi)
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith
`Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt
`Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-`Aufi
Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan
`Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Abu `Afak
`Asma' Bint Marwan
The Meccan Ten:
Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl
Habbar Ibn al-Aswad
Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh (more detail in the above article)
Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh
Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami
Hind Bint Utbah
Sarah the mawlat of `Amr Ibn Hashim
Fartana
Qaribah
Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh
Ibn Sunayna
What really happened to the Banu Qurayza
This is the url to a site essay explaining this early incident of terror by the 'prophet' Mohammed.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/treaty.html
Excessive cruelty in the cases of Kinana b. al-Rabi`
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/kinana.html
and the people from Urayna.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/urayna.html
I do recognize the efforts of mainstream muslims to secularize their faith, for it is IN NEED of secularization or it is a threat to world peace and maybe even civilization itself. We always hear the NOW crowd whining about Christians but why do they NOT go to Saudi Arabia, a moderate muslim country and try to 'free' their sisters?
Probably for the same reason that animal rights activists never throw paint (or hurl insults) on leather bound motorcyclists!
To those out there like Norm and Ginny, I challenge you to look at what you are saying and view the facts instead of repeating the rabid ramblings of those who hate Christianity and Judaism simply because of bigotry.
Rex