RE: Thoughts on Islam and Christianity
It must be Debate About Islam Week. Another Timothy has posted some provocative thoughts on Islam and Christianity, as the title accurately alludes. I posted an extremely long response in his comments section, which you may be interested in viewing. Feel free to add your thoughts as well. Here’s a brief taste of the discussion.
He wrote:
…Most Christians tend to know virtually nothing about the Qur’an! And yet seem to have the freedom to comment on it regularly. I often wonder: if Christians so often get upset about ignorant things said about the Bible (that mostly can only be attributed to lack of knowledge), how is it then that we are astonishingly quick to make the same mistake?
And then my response:
The more people who commit questionable actions and claim that they follow the Qur’an the harder it is to recognize those who are “upstanding” Muslims (obviously this cycle applies to all religions). In this case I believe the onus is on the Religion to define itself by its actions. An example of that can be found by examining some Muslim religious language. Language is dynamic; one of the things I hear argued about all the time is the meaning of the word “jihad.” …It is true that “jihad” has been defined as a holy war, but that that holy war is supposed to be understood as an “internal struggle.” However, people who argue that “jihad” still means primarily an “internal holy war” fail to recognize that the way in which words are used and worked out does in fact change words’ meaning over time. The more Muslims that act out jihad externally in fighting “infidels” the more the meaning of jihad is rightly associated with external, rather than internal, war.
Ok Tim, but if you substitute “Bible” for “Qur’an”, “Christian” for “Muslim”, “purity” for “jihad”, and [insert evangelical cause of the moment here - e.g., abortion, homosexuality, etc] for “infidels” in your response, couldn’t it easily be argued that the other Tim is onto something still? Just a thought.
btw, i didn’t read the whole post on the other site, just responding to what i see here.
a trip to the God’s Politics sight to follow Jeff Carr’s postings on his current peacekeeping trip to Iran would be worth it. http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/
You have to scroll down to find his others posts, they are mixed in with other content. he has some good comments on the very discussion you are having.
Thanks guys!
[quote comment="912"]Ok Tim, but if you substitute “Bible” for “Qur’an”, “Christian” for “Muslim”, “purity” for “jihad”, and [insert evangelical cause of the moment here - e.g., abortion, homosexuality, etc] for “infidels” in your response, couldn’t it easily be argued that the other Tim is onto something still? Just a thought.[/quote]
I certainly don’t deny that Christians have a whole host of problems, but I do deny that those problems prevent me from critiquing Islam; and actually, my viewed response actually can go against Christianity too–which is fine! From above: “I believe the onus is on the Religion to define itself by its actions.”
Thanks for the link, Jed. Definitely some interesting things.
BTW, would it be helpful if I published my entire response to Timothy here too?
Tim!
Thanks for commenting on my “thoughts”. You are right with your suspicion about the response to your “theocracy”-post. However, I didn’t want to respond directly, because I noticed quickly that my thoughts were not directed towards you personally, but rather to a more general problem I have been feeling for a while now. And so, I decided to just make my own post.
I find your thoughts very interesting and in many ways helpful to emmend some of my thought-flaws. I am impressed by the perspicuity of your thoughts and the way you can cut to the core of the problems. I probably should adress the three points in turn:
1) It might be wisest to begin with me re-stating your thought, to be sure that we understand each other most effectively. I understand you virtually to be saying: ‘yes the religion of Islam might not be as bad as most think, BUT many Muslims are interpreting the Qur’an falsely and therefore the Qur’an has in effect become bad – at least in its outcome.’ Your example with ‘jihad’ was helpful: “The more Muslims that act out jihad externally in fighting “infidels” the more the meaning of jihad is rightly associated with external, rather than internal, war.” I guess your main point is that the actions of Muslims not only resemble the content of the Qur’an but also form and categorize, therefore conclusively allowing Christians to critize the actions justly.
Althought Islam has not had the kind of history of hermeneutical interpretations as Christianity has (mainly because Islam is a book-centered religion, whereas – for most Christians – Christianity is a Christ-centered religion), I still believe that religion and hermeneutics need to be separated in evaluation. If it can be exegetically proven that ‘jihad’ means internal struggle, than it seems to me that we should rather evaluate Islam by what it says than by how Muslims interpret it. And that is where my criticism comes in: Christians do not know enough about the Qur’an.
2) I believe you are right on with pointing out my logical lapse I made right at this juncture: “Now, to argue that Islamic politics reflects the nature of the religion can truly only be made by someone who has no understanding of the history of Christianity.” I guess one must call that a classical logic ‘mistake’, and you did well at pointing that out.
However, my main argument remains the same. I seemed not to be able to communicate it accurately, so I’ll give it another try. My point is this: in our Christian history, we have experienced that the politics of so called Christian countries does not reflect the nature of our religion. We are able to detach these spheres. This capability of detaching I would argue has two sources: 1) Because Christianity was born under Roman sovereignty, and because Jesus did not come as a political revolutionary, we have Romans 13 and for instance the prayer for the government in 1. Epistle of Clement. Christianity therefore seems to have been disconnected from politics from the start. It is all the more startelling that Christianity developed the way it did in the Middle Ages.
2) However, because Christianity or better some because some Christians developed the way they did (aquiring political power; politics using religion to justify wars; “deus vult”; etc.) modern Christians realize that religion really must not be confused with politics. So understanding our Christian history helps us to detach Christianity from politics.
Now, – and this is the crux of my argument – why aren’t we doing so with Islam? Why do still hear people (mostly implicitly) stating: ‘You can the evil of Islam. Just look at Qud, or Taliban.’ You said: “the politics of Islam and the Religion of Islam are inextricably intertwined, and that statement is not a perversion coming from an overly-westernized Christian mind, it is what Muslims profess.” This is where I would be more interested in the Qur’an’s witness to the subject than the ones of some Muslims. See, if you would have asked Urban II. if he was convinced about his cause, there would be no doubt baout his answer – and yet we Christians would strongly oppose him for doing what he did, because it was not ‘Christian’. Why aren’t we as strong to oppose the wrong doings of Muslisms? Why don’t we say – ‘what they are doing really isn’t Islamic’? Instead, it seems, many Christians let the (in many cases terrible) Islamic politics confirm a distorted picture of Islam once again?
3) I think we generally agree on this point. I would probably tend to stress the idea that we shouldn’t wait for Muslims to tolerate religiously before we step up; while I believe you would stress that we shouldn’t fall into the trap of turning tolerance into passivity or even recreance. “Both religions need to tolerate each other” – this is what we both said.
Well this is long again, but I feel that we are touching on a nerve of cultural interessent. I would love to hear your thoughts, really enjoyed them. KS is great…
Thanks for the fantastic comment, Timothy! I appreciate your sharp mind and your willingness to dialogue on the matter. I think the issue we are discussing has strong cultural relevance and is a very important matter, your post and subsequent comment has encouraged me to dig deeper into this area, and for that I thank you. I think you did a superb job outlining your argument just now, but I think there a few important places that I differ from you, which I haven’t adequately explained. I’ll do my best to outline those places here. I’ll start with a statement of yours that caught my eye:
If it can be exegetically proven that ‘jihad’ means internal struggle, than it seems to me that we should rather evaluate Islam by what it says than by how Muslims interpret it.
I have several things to say about this matter; but probably my first question would be: why is it Christianity’s responsibility to guard orthodox Islam and maintain its exegetical purity? Your example of Urban II seems to support me here, because those criticizing Urban II and his perspective on Christianity are Christians themselves. I believe the call to Orthodoxy must always emerge from inside the faith, which means that Islam (or any other religion for that matter) may always be justifiably judged on its faith-based actions, even if those actions do not represent “Orthodoxy.†Again, a “return to the true faith†must be initiated from the inside out. A caveat here is that someone who is looking to enter the faith will have a vastly different perspective than someone interested solely in critiquing it from the outside; the convert may examine the faith and recognize that current outcomes do not, in fact, reflect the Orthodox faith. The convert would then be free to embrace the faith anyway, with the understanding that his/her faith would be Orthodox, and that as a new convert he or she would be free to work from the inside out to produce change. But here I am straying away from my main points trying to preemptively cover my bases…
Besides asking why non-Muslims are responsible for guarding the exegetical purity of Islam, I have one other important point that we haven’t yet touched on at all. In regard to my statement about the intertwinement of Muslim Religion and Politics you said: This is where I would be more interested in the Qur’an’s witness to the subject than the ones of some Muslims. However, such a statement acknowledges only one source of Muslim Religious justification and ignores a source that is second only in important to the Qur’an itself: The Hadith. The Hadith are the “collected traditions, teachings, and stories of the prophet Muhammad and are an accepted source of Islamic doctrine.†Evidenced by the Hadith we find that religious actions have almost as much doctrinal significance as religious text. In fact, if you examine Muhammad’s life you will find that some of his actions, part of the Hadith in fact, are contrary to text in the Qur’an. Such discrepancies wreak havoc on nailing down what, exactly, is orthodox behavior.
My main points, then, are that Muslims and Muslims alone are responsible for maintaining the Orthodoxy of Islam and, that many current Islamic actions, which appear to be contrary to what the Qur’an espouses, may be nearer to Orthodoxy than you believe.