Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, February 8, 2006 08:40 PM

  Just War and a Religion of Peace

  Unfortunately the pontificators have little in the way of historical example to lead us in our own judgement.

  Christianity had to develop a theory to justify war, after Constantine's appropriation of it, that lasted centuries. Basically the Gospels are an anti-war, love your neighbor, type of document. Its only the Fundamentalists, opposing a scientific examination of their religion, who refer to the Hebrew Scriptures and their similarly Islamic calls to violence. And we see this sentiment borne out today among Israelis and the broader Middle East.

  On the contrary, Islam, the religion of peace, has had to formulate its own theory of peace over centuries precisely because its formative texts are flatly hate-mongering to what it percieves as unbelievers.

  While Christianity had to formulate a theory of war over centuries, contradicting its essential doctrines all along, Islam's re-imagining itself as a religion of peace is just as untenable. Perhaps moreso that Christianity.

  Christianity and Judaism studiously attempted a scientific and analytical examination of their own religions, starting in the early 19th century. (Although one can trace the movement back before Spinoza.) Therefore one finds a tolerant form of Judaism/Christianity in Europe and in civilized parts of the US. However, Muslims refuse to engage in interfaith dialogue using Historical Criticism.

  There are many reasons for this. Namely that the textual backgrounds on Islam are so weak, i.e. Mohammed's understanding of Judaism and Christianity were based on apocryphal texts and blatant misunderstandings of both Judaism and Christianity, and yet he started a religion claiming to supercede both of them! And that he was illiterate. Which is an Islamic argument for the truth of his claims. That no illiterate could possibly have the insight into religious texts that he had.

  Reasonable enough.

  But his referencing of religious texts is from the point of, well, an illiterate. His referencing of Christian texts are from apocryphal sources. He has no idea what or who Jesus is, namely the titles "Christ", "Messiah" and others. And Mohammed uses these, ignorantly. And then there's the misuse/abuse of the Jewish scriptures as a false lineage, though I'm sure one of our Jewish readers can correct us on this one.

  Regardless, this shows that this religion was, at the start, a mad scramble to concoct a religion out of patchwork that appropriated from others. No harm there. What is of importance is the rapidity and violence with which they attacked their heirs. Mohammed first attacked the Jews, forcing them from Medinah and then the Christians. Ever since there has been a holy war.

  The only objections, throughout the following Christian centuries, has been that Islam, founded by a polygamist (which nobody should give a damn about) held that FORCED CONVERSION was a divinely instituted right of the followers of his true religion. That was Aquinas' big beef. Forced conversion.

  Now in the west... Do we really want to have to deal with that in our public sphere?

  —John, Brussels Belgium
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel