William Rees Mogg discusses Why the Pope was Right.
My own thoughts on the issue are first of all, that since no one who criticizes the Pope on this matter has read his speech, they are more accurately railing against the Byzantine emperor who’s quote was repeated therein.
Secondly I think it’s launched a very interesting debate, it has emboldened those in the west (ironically just a few days after the death of Oriana Fallaci) who have some qualms with the teachings of much of Islam to voice their mind.
Is it pertinent that Jihad, an apparently abstract struggle against evil, can be so easily pursued by violent means? Does it matter that a significant percentage of Muslims living in Britain feel that suicide bombers are martyrs doing God’s work?
Are we deluding ourselves by repeating the suggestion that the peaceful benevolent religion practiced by the majority of Muslims is the true Islam? Is it just a watered down compromise, an attempt to make the best of a bad situation?
Personally I was taught that it’s my duty to help others down their path to God, even if it’s not a path I’d have chosen but can I accept the necessity of violence in religious doctrine?
I suspect the question is what the Prophet Muhammad meant by what he preached.
This will not be heard favorably but I feel that there are a lot of similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church.
I don’t suggest that Muhammad recited the word of god from behind a screen, translated from bronze plates he dug up in his backyard and then subsequently could not repeat those words accurately. I am referring to the similarities between the Mormon movement and early Islam as groups who’s creed was an amalgam of civic code and religious duty.
Both had a leader who sought to found a holy society in which the word of god was paramount, both saw no distinction between state and church and both spread their faith and society simultaneously.
The Mormons were successful due, in no small part, to their admirable and highly ambitious perpetual migration fund, providing them with a constant stream of followers and converts eager for a slice of life in the New World.
Muhammad led military campaigns against tribes who sought to drive his people into retreat, he recaptured Mecca and fought with great aptitude. The subsequent wars against Christendom in Syria and Mesopotamia did not occur till the prophet had ascended into heaven, no more justifiable or a part of the religion than the Crusades and arguably completely at odds with Muhammad’s own teachiings (“Of all the people who believe in god, he who says ”Christ is my saviour“ is the greatest friend you will know”).
Yet even with the limited violence attributable to Muhammad (only 24 were reputed to have died when he took Mecca) he still wielded a sword, he shed blood with it and that is where the problem arises.
If Muhammad was justified by order of God in killing non-believers, there were grounds for the slaying of other non-believers. No matter how limited, there exists a loophole, a justification under which one can kill another human without sinning, arguably performing God’s work.
The History of Christianity is not without its blemishes but such acts are considered palpably un-Christian. The Crusades, the killing of ‘Witches’ and the like are all at odds with the fundamental messages of Christ - those which bore early Christians through persecution, violence and torture to their place as accepted members of society.
Turning the other cheek, abstaining from any violence. Following Christ’s example.
So even if in the abstract, Jihad is the struggle against evil, sin or immorality, even if the true message of Islam is non-violence, can I commend any faith who’s founder practiced violence? Who’s sword, now considered a blessed relic, was more than just for show?
The beauty of Christianity is in the parable of the Good Samaritan: you don’t have to be Christian to enter the Kingdom of heaven, you only have to live a decent life - by morals which we today consider to be universally and objectively “good”. I have no problem with believing that most Muslims will find salvation in the next life because they live peaceful, generous lives.
However aside from his ignoring most of Christ’s message whilst glorifying him as a Prophet, (How Muhammad gets around the whole “I am the King of the Jews and the Son of God” thing is beyond me, it’s not like Christ muttered it under his breath, he was crucified for it) I have to take issue with Muhammad’s embrace, no matter how unwilling or fleeting, of violence.
A letter in the Times summed it up:
Sir, In his letter of Sept 12 Dr Ahmad Abou-Saleh denies the statement by David Selbourne (Comment, Sept 9) that “Islam is not a religion in the conventional sense”. This is to deny its origin and history and beginnings as a politico-religious ideology. Its creator shed blood to expand and conquer.
During the Battle of the Trench in AD627, Prophet Muhammad ordered the massacre of 700 Jews and Christians. In the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, one may still see the sword of the Prophet Muhammad and the swords of the first three caliphs.
No one is ever going to find the sword of Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha or Guru Nanak.
RANDHIR SINGH BAINS
Gants Hill, Essex
Irrespective of whether or not Muhammad ordered that massacre, or whether he phrased it thusly, no Muslim will deny that Muhammad used his sword at one time or another and that is where I find the limits of my tolerance for his teachings.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at September 18, 2006 11:40 AM