Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Islam

  • Blaming and Sympathizing with Groups

    Blaming and Sympathizing with Groups

    Peace dove
    From OpenClipart.org

    I didn’t want to comment on the murder of 49 people in Orlando, not because I don’t sympathize with the victims or condemn the killing, but because I dislike getting tangled up in politics on this blog.

    If a Christian commits an illegal act, we often separate him (or her) from “our” Christianity, or even claim that the perpetrator was not a Christian at all. From local history here in the Pensacola area, I recall Paul Hill who committed murder here at the entrance to an abortion clinic. Paul Hill was an ordained (and later defrocked) pastor. He built his view on principles that were held by a large number of Christians. Yet when he went so far as to take two lives because of those views there were those who said he wasn’t really a Christian.

    That’s a claim of convenience. It keeps us clean. It prevents us from having to examine ourselves, and that is very unfortunate, even dangerous.

    On the other hand, we have the problem of someone looking at Paul Hill and saying, “See! That is what Christians do! Paul Hill was a Christian and he was also a murderer. So also all Christians!” That is an equally dangerous view. A faith tradition as broad and varied as our own is bound to have some people who go off the rails. If some Christians are opposed to abortion as murder, someone is bound to decide to become a vigilante and “fix” the problem. This isn’t an argument against the view that abortion is murder. Rather, it tells us that human beings will carry things too far, or perhaps jump the rails to something completely different.

    In fact, we can have similar results in society as a whole. I am always concerned when legislation is proposed and passed in the heat of emotions following an event. Rarely, I believe, is such legislation the best choice. We are capable of passing immoral laws because we are outraged by evil. Evil can generate more evil.

    Neither blaming the entire group of which a person is a part, nor excluding that person from your own group will help. A person who, up to yesterday, you would have called part of your own religious (or other social) group has now committed a crime does not become something else when he commits a crime. He was something else while living among you. The terrorist, murderer, or child molester of tomorrow may be sitting down the pew from you in church. There are evil people out there and there are triggers waiting to start them on doing evil deeds.

    The same is true of other faiths and social groups. There are Muslims who are appalled by acts of terror. There are Muslims who are evil. Just as we would wish to have the evildoer separated from our faith, and don’t like the idea of “Christian terrorist,” so Muslims would like to have terrorists separated from their faith. We don’t want to have all Christians blamed for the Paul Hills of the world. Muslims don’t want to all be blamed for the actions of one man in Orlando.

    This is not a matter of numbers. Some will point out to me that there are more Muslims espousing terror and violence by far than Christians. I’m not going to argue the statistics. I recently spoke at an interfaith event along with a number of other people, including a Muslim Imam. He’s a fine person and an advocate of peace. He doesn’t cease to be those things because others commit acts of terror. He is who he is, and so are millions of others.

    We need to grant them the courtesy we want people to grant us. We are each who we are apart from what other people who may claim the same label(s) does. Where attitudes of our group contribute, we need to fight that. In my experience, peace advocates tend to fight just such attitudes.

    And then there are the victims. It was interesting watching who mentioned what. The victims were from the LGBT community, gathered at a place where one would expect to find them. It appears that the perpetrator of this act of terror hated and despised gay people. This is also a fact and needs to be mentioned. LGBT people are targetted these days for who they are. It’s monstrously wrong to do so and we need to be aware that it is happening and conscious of what makes that happen. Think: What is it in my language or behavior that might make someone else think a gay person is less of a person than I am? Then don’t do or say that.

    We need to sympathize with those who are injured, and in doing so, we need to be willing to name them and to name the reasons they were targetted. We need to condemn evil, and at the same time give the same courtesy we would expect to the innocent.

    About a year after 9/11 I was traveling and rode in a taxi with a driver who was a Sikh. I made bold and asked him whether he had been threatened following the attacks because of his appearance. I recognized him as Sikh, but he might easily have been misidentified as a Muslim (some Sikhs were). He told me that for several months he could not wear his turban because of the threats. It was unfortunate that a man with no connection to Islam, much less the terrorists, was treated in this way.

    But it is equally unfortunate that Muslims with no connection to the terrorists are treated in that way because of hate for their group. We make every effort to be separated from evil acts by those who call themselves Christians. We should be equally sympathetic to those in other religious groups who are trying to do the same thing. It’s easier to blame the group. It’s more productive to be precise and accurate.

    Not to mention more Christ-like.

     

  • A Muslim Comment on the Mariam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag Case

    From time to time I hear the question regarding some act of terrorism, or by some act of a Muslim government: Where is the Muslim outrage?

    I first want to note that I find measuring online outrage to be a somewhat hopeless task. I am outraged at many things that I never manage to mention on my blog. My blogging has a great deal more to do with my current schedule than with my state of outrage.

    But I do want to call an article, Sudan Government Tells Young Christian Woman to Recant or Die, written by Harris Zafar. To quote, regarding her sentence:

    As a human of conscience, I see this as a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Moreover, as an Ahmadi Muslim, I find the actions of Sudan’s government incredibly disturbing. They claim not only to be administering Shariah Law that is allegedly a 100% Islamic constitution, but also that “it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.”

    I found the entire article extremely interesting.

  • No, Burning Books Is NOT Worthy of Respect

    Book burning
    Image by pcorreia via Flickr

    The Fifth Column has a post titled On Burning Books (HT: Divine Ripples), referring specifically to the recent burning of a Qur’an. He concludes that:

    It may not be prudent, it may not be useful, but it is a stand worthy of respect.

    I disagree. Book burning is either the petulant reaction of fearful people looking for control, but lacking convincing arguments, or a way to gain undeserved attention.

    The article cites a really bad reason why one might respect book burning: Church councils did it through the years. Wow! Lots of church people gathering together and doing something stupid! Who would have ever imagined it? It just proves that Christians are no more immune from stupidity and control issues than any other group of people.

    Here’s a quote:

    And it wasn’t just the Koran that burned. During the Middle Ages, the Talmud was frequently targeted for the fire by Church authorities precisely because of the numerous blasphemies concerning Christ and the Blessed Virgin that it contains. Throughout Europe, the book was formally put on trial and censored or burnt, in much the same way Terry Jones tried and burnt the Koran.

    And this is somehow an example of a good idea?

    I want to make clear her that I’m talking about we should do, what’s a good idea, and not what should be legal. I would never burn the American flag, even in protest, but I firmly believe it should be legal to do so. I would never burn a copy of the Qur’an, but I believe the action should be legal. Lots of stupid things are and should be legal. I do not believe the burning of the Qur’an justifies violent actions in response, just as I do not believe that any insult to Christianity, such as burning a Bible, would justify a violent response from Christians.

    Now to be fair, the article does question both the prudence and effectiveness of the tactic. But nonetheless the author concludes that there is something here to be respected.

    Our problem with Islam is not that we don’t get to say enough nasty things about Muslims, or that we can’t respond to Islam. We can and do respond respectfully on many occasions. But when someone burns a copy of the Qur’an it sends another message, not one of respectful disagreement, but one of hatred. It does nothing to stop even one act of terrorism. It does nothing to convince any radical Muslim that he is wrong, nor any Muslim, of course. It is the adult equivalent of a child’s temper tantrum.

    I’m reminded of a time many years ago when I was in a group of young men. One person got angry at another and started swinging his arms in a sort of suggestion he was going to punch the other one out. He kept saying, “Hold me back! Hold me back!” But he never actually approached the other guy, who would doubtless have won any fight between them. Nobody tried to hold him back either, because we knew he was going to be ineffective. The one difference between this event and that one is that the purported target exercised restraint.

    We don’t need to take our cues from the radicals. We don’t need to become like them. They are not concerned about who they kill. We should be. They are not making distinctions between one American and another. We should recognize distinctions in their camp. We should not let terrorism make us less than we are.

    I fear, however, that it has already happened to some extent.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Persecution

    I hear complaints from time to time that American Christians are persecuted. Usually this means some minor annoyance, such as being ridiculed for some belief or another. I’ve even heard the complaint when someone is challenged to provide a defense for their faith.

    One of the best ways to get our balance, and to realize how privileged we are in America, despite any minor annoyances, we have but to look at places where Christians are currently actively persecuted, where a threat to their livelihood is the most minor of persecutions, where, in fact, Christians may be killed for their faith.

    World Prayr, an organization with which I’m associated, has been highlighting persecuted Christians on their blog in their daily devotional posts.  (You can find today’s post here.)

    I’d like to add one thing here. In America, we are in the majority as Christians. We may complain about nominal Christians or Christians in name, but churches are ubiquitous, and well accepted. As a majority, we need to resist the temptation to behave as persecutors. As an example, I’m referring to opposition to allowing Muslims to build mosques, and to opposing minority religion representation amongst military chaplains. If these things happened to Christian minorities in other countries, we’d regard it as persecution. We need to do unto others as we would have them do to us.

     

  • George Bush and God Concepts

    A number of folks around the internet have gotten pretty worked up about [tag]George Bush[/tag]’s comment to an Al Arabiya reporter in an interview that he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Here’s an extract (source: www.whitehouse.gov):

    Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren’t religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that — we had a person blow up our — blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that’s not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

    Amongst those who have responded negatively to this is Joe Carter who applies considerable logic to refuting this idea that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Carter is pretty thoroughly convinced that it just can’t be so.

    As a note to any liberals who are crowing about Christian conservatives turning on Bush, I must note that in my part of the world, Bush is often regarded as a liberal himself. Conservative Christians haven’t been all that much on board with him from the time of the primaries. He was certainly better than Kerry from their point of view, but he is not one of theirs. It shouldn’t be surprising that when he talks about religion, it’s not pure conservative evangelicalism.

    Further, let me note for the record that I am a trinitarian Christian who accepts the incarnation as the central doctrine of Christianity. In other words, I believe that Christ was divine, and more specifically uniquely divine, i.e. not just having a divine spark, and in a way that I and other people are definitely not divine. Thus I differ from the Jewish and Muslim concepts of God.

    But there are two major issues that I think run through this debate. First, one’s concept of God is, hopefully, something different from one’s God. In fact, worship of the concept is something I discussed in an earlier post Conceptual Idolatry. Second, just how “right” does one have to be about God in order to worship him? I’m going to very briefly look at these.

    All of us have some sort of concept in mind when we refer to God. It may be a concept that we reject as impossible, or it may be one in which we put our trust. The quality and value of our concepts vary substantially, I would guess. God is not limited by, defined by, or fully described by our concepts. It almost goes without saying that as a trinitarian Christian my concept of God differs from the Jewish or Muslim concepts, amongst many others. It differs in smaller ways from the concepts of God held by my fellow Christians, including those who are worked up over George Bush’s concepts.

    I would like to think that my concept of God is more accurate than mine. I come to the Father through Jesus Christ (John 14:6) and I believe Jesus gave the clearest picture of God for us. I don’t regard this as exclusive, since I believe one can follow a road without necessarily comprehending all the roadsigns. (If anything generates a comment, that one should, but I’m not going to explain further in this post, so there!) I am, however, fallible, and I’m quite certain that my concept of God is not perfect.

    So we could replace the question first with this: Are our concepts of God the same? No. Are the similar? In many ways, they are not.

    But if we are truly monotheistic, we believe there is only one God. So I think there is a second question: Can you worship God (the only one there is) when your concept is flawed, even seriously flawed? Well, Paul suggested that the Athenians did, in worshiping their unknown God:

    ?23? For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” — Acts 17:23 (NRSV)

    Paul, as reported by Luke, starts from the point of view that they are, in fact, worshiping this unknown God, even though they don’t know him, his attributes, his name, or anything whatsoever about him. Is Paul asserting a theological point here that one can worship a God one does not know? He could be simply starting from his opponent’s viewpoint in order to lead them to his, but it seems to me that he does allow that they are actually worshiping God in some way, however partially. Romans 1 and 2 I think expands on this idea quite a bit. People who do not know God explicitly nonetheless can serve him.

    So I think the arguments fail on both points. That two people’s concepts of God differ does not mean they are worshiping two different gods, any more than the fact that my concept of my wife and someone else’s differ means we’re talking about different people. Further, one can worship something one does not know.

    Does this mean that I accept the doctrines and concepts of Islam on the same basis as I do my Christian doctrines? Not at all. If I did, I would be a Muslim. I simply believe they are worshiping the same God, not because of how right or wrong they are (or I am), but rather because I believe there is only one God available to worship.

  • Like Us or Die

    Here’s another case: Leader offers $100,000 for cartoonist’s death.

    The head of an al-Qaida-led group in Iraq offered $100,000 for the killing of Swedish cartoonist [tag]Lars Vilks[/tag] over his drawing depicting the Prophet Mohammad.

    I’ll say again what I have said before. Blasphemy should not be illegal. I believe in [tag]free speech[/tag] when it’s engaged against my own faith. I don’t change my mind when it’s going against someone else. Muslim leaders who offer this kind of reward simply reflect badly on [tag]Islam[/tag]