God is a Dick – Part XXX: The Qur’an on Qital
Countless times since September 11, I’ve seen Muslim scholars on news programs talking about how terrorism is contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an. They claim that Islam is a peaceful religion and say that we have misunderstood the principle of jihad. Well, the latter claim is correct. Jihad has come to mean “holy war” to westerners (including many Muslims), but it is actually a much larger concept. Jihad is simply “struggle.” It is the struggle against evil, against one’s base nature, against injustice, etc. In this sense, jihad should be at the heart of a Muslim’s every action. However, naturally contained within this idea is violent struggle or fighting. This small subset of jihad is called qital, and that is the idea I have sought in the Qur’an for this week’s diatribe of dickery. Let’s dive right in.
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. (S. 9:73)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). (S. 9:123)
Surah 9 does a nice job of laying out the basics. It is a good Muslim’s duty to fight with hypocrites and disbelievers. Allah will be with them in their fight, and it’s OK because the disbelievers are going to hell anyway, so bringing them a little hell on Earth is justified.
Let’s imagine I’m a Muslim. How should I deal with non-Muslims?
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (S. 2:191-193)
So, I should kill non-Muslims wherever they may be. Also, it’s OK to be the aggressor. This passage specifically says that it’s only acceptable to kill unbelievers in mosques if they attack first. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that anywhere else I am welcome to kill a non-Muslim without provocation. Finally, it says that the fight must continue until the unbelievers surrender and convert to Islam. Well, at least they have an out. Allah is merciful indeed.
What’s the deal? Do I have to fight? What if I’m a pacifist? Can I still be a good Muslim?
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. (S. 2:216)
Damn. That’s the same argument that got me to eat lima beans as a kid. Muslims have no choice in fighting unbelievers, but Allah says it’s for their own good. They’ll understand someday when they’re infinity years old like him.
But Allah made me and loves me, right? He wouldn’t want me to die.
Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. (S. 4:74)
Oh! I’m supposed to die. OK. Now I get it. I’ll just strap some explosives to my waist. That way, everybody wins.
So, I have to fight, and Allah doesn’t care if I die. But what if I face the enemy and get scared? If I decide at the last minute that blowing myself to tiny bits isn’t appealing, can I call it quits?
O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless manoeuvring for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end. (S. 8:15-16)
Wow. That’s hard core. Once I have the explosives strapped on, I have to go through with it. It’s no longer a choice between life and death. It’s a choice between heaven and hell. Maybe I’ll just meet the enemy head on. What should I do with them when I find them?
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. (S. 47:4)
I should cut their heads off? Really? OK. Should I videotape it and put it on Al-Jazeera, or would that be over the top?
The unbelievers can’t all be bad, right? I met a nice Christian guy the other day. Can I be friends with him?
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, (S. 4:89)
Sure. I was going to see if he wanted to go bowling or something, but instead I’ll try to convert him and kill him if I fail. That should still fill up the evening. Besides, Allah did not choose to make me a great bowler.
Let’s review. Allah says: Kill non-Muslims. Cut off their heads. War is a requirement. If I fight and die, I’ll go to heaven, but if I retreat, I’ll burn in hell. Pretty simple stuff, really. I hope I’ve cleared up any misconceptions. It’s dangerous to misunderstand the Qur’an. After all, “on the Day of Resurrection thou seest those who lied concerning Allah with their faces blackened. Is not the home of the scorners in hell?” (S. 39:60) Dick.
~I AM~
January 29th, 2006 at at 2:15 am
This is pretty fucked up (but it does support the argument you made in your previous post). Why could I not have been born in the next century, in what I expect to be a far more reasonable and compassionate world?
January 29th, 2006 at at 6:00 am
This is pretty fucked up (but it does support the argument you made in your previous post). Why could I not have been born in the next century, in what I expect to be a far more reasonable and compassionate world?
Or a charred and blackened stump.
January 29th, 2006 at at 10:35 am
From your God is a Dick series, let me see if I got this right. The xtian god, the jewish god, and the muslim god is the same god. This loving, all merciful god tells the jews to kill and torture everyone who is not jewish. It tells xtians to kill and torture everyone who is not xtian. And, it tells the muslims to kill and torture everyone who is not muslim. All three groups follow the insane orders of a character whom they have never seen and for whom there is no evidence, with fervor and gusto, because all who are not us are going to hell anyway. Did I miss something? Great series but calling god a “Dick” may be too polite.
January 29th, 2006 at at 11:41 am
A Muslim classmate informed me this week that the Quran “doesn’t actually say violent things.” Apparently “people make fake Qurans” and “it’s been all over the news.”
Geez, when will parents stop lying?
January 29th, 2006 at at 1:27 pm
I tried reading an English translation of the Quran and it bored me to tears. I found it impossible to get through.
For a little amusement, replace “kill”, “fight”, “slay”, and “slaughter” with “buttfuck” in the Quranic passages where those words appear.
January 29th, 2006 at at 3:01 pm
While I agree with the overall conclusion that this god is a really nasty piece of work, no matter which of the three books you chose to quote, you’ve got a few non sequiturs here. Not that there aren’t pieces that support your reading, of course.
Anyway.
I read the second quote as: if they (whoever they may be) attack you, you may retaliate until they give in and stop the aggression. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. It is called “pre-emptive war”, which is not to be confused with the *preventative* war that is the Bush Doctrine. Once they give up, no one except the “wrong-doers” may be treated with hostility. If we assume “wrong-doers” to be defined as war-criminal, that would also be quite OK with me. That the Qu’ran defines wrong-doers differently is not evident from the quote you chose.
From 4:74 it doesn’t follow that you’re “supposed to die”. Instead it says that anybody who participates is to be rewarded, whether he gets killed or not. In other words: the god doesn’t consider your life important enough to care.
I understand 47:4 to say that kill them while the battle is on, when the enemy gives up, bind them. And if you catch them alive, accept a ransom or be nice until the war is over. Hey, even the Geneva Conventions say that.
January 29th, 2006 at at 5:04 pm
Haha, I loved this part— Sure. I was going to see if he wanted to go bowling or something, but instead I’ll try to convert him and kill him if I fail. That should still fill up the evening. Besides, Allah did not choose to make me a great bowler.
Religion in the Islamic world is definitely a huge threat to civilization. There isn’t enough time to deconvert everyone. Even in developed western countries where science and technology are prevalent, people still resort to their superstitions. I think the only hope is to work toward making their quality of life better, or at least stop holding them down. If someone has food, shelter, and an iPod they’re much less likely to want to kill themselves. But if they’ve got nothing to live for anyway, they might as well take the gamble with killing non-believers.
January 29th, 2006 at at 6:27 pm
This species is insufficiently evolved, and the wrong members of it are breeding too much. Where’s that meteor the size of the Yucatan peninsula when we really need it?
January 29th, 2006 at at 10:49 pm
Hey no where in bible it says to kill non beleivers… dont mispreach u sinner
This is pretty fucked up (but it does support the argument you made in your previous post). Why could I not have been born in the next century, in what I expect to be a far more reasonable and compassionate world?
From your God is a Dick series, let me see if I got this right. The xtian god, the jewish god, and the muslim god is the same god. This loving, all merciful god tells the jews to kill and torture everyone who is not jewish. It tells xtians to kill and torture everyone who is not xtian. And, it tells the muslims to kill and torture everyone who is not muslim. All three groups follow the insane orders of a character whom they have never seen and for whom there is no evidence, with fervor and gusto, because all who are not us are going to hell anyway. Did I miss something? Great series but calling god a “Dick” may be too polite.
January 29th, 2006 at at 10:54 pm
I think koran is from the Era when there was nothing to do but to think of supernatural. they depended completly on some supernatural power may be it crops/hunting/making babies/ stealing some body’s wife etc
January 30th, 2006 at at 3:35 am
Anne, I think that might kill us all, unfortunately, and, as bad as the world has become (or, as slowly as it has progressed intellectually) I, for one, am not ready to kill myself along with all the “slow” people.
January 30th, 2006 at at 7:24 am
Actually, believer, the Bible does indeed say to kill non-believers. It implies it throughout the OT, and specifically orders it in a verse which, unfortunately, I do not remember off hand, nor do I have study materials at this moment.
BUT. I will find it and post it tonight (anyone else care to help me out here?)
January 30th, 2006 at at 7:25 am
Sam Harris’ End of Faith has a whole chapter on this.
One of my best friends is a convert to Islam. I plan on a very good conversation withhim, once I’m more versed in the al Qu’ran.
January 30th, 2006 at at 8:06 pm
To Cubic rooms,
While the Jewish and Christian God are the same, I am sure you must be aware that the Muslim god is Allah and is not the same as Jesus or Jehovah of the Christian Bible. Neither is it the same teaching or beliefs, which you can verify by borrowing the english translation of the Koran from the library. Most libraries have at least one copy or will get it in from another library for you if you want. As for your claim that the Christian/Jewish God had his people attack other nations. These were not innocient nations we are talking about, niether was it an unprovoked attack, in that these nations had attacked and taken captive other nations and races of people or jews or Christians. Therefore it was never an unprovoked attack but national self-defence or defence of other innocient nations.
January 31st, 2006 at at 8:33 pm
SS, the Muslims consider Allah to be the same god as the god of the Jews and the Christians. They even revere the Israelite prophets, Jesus and Mary. They just believe that Mohammed is god’s final prophet. Of course, as an atheist, I consider Muslims to be just as misguided as Jews and Christians.
The European Christians conquered the native peoples of the Americas over the course of several centuries. The Native Americans, having no naval fleets of any sort, and lacking the technology, let alone possessing the requisite geographic knowledge, never attacked the nations of Christian Europe. So in whose defense did the Spaniards, English, Portuguese, Dutch, French and Americans wage their wars against the Native Americans?
January 31st, 2006 at at 10:07 pm
Hey no where in bible it says to kill non beleivers… dont mispreach u sinner
Hey, smartass. This is the Qur’an. NOT the Bible.
Although, I do believe both are complete bullshit and are more useful for toilet paper than reading material..
February 1st, 2006 at at 10:02 pm
To TommyKey,
You claim that Europe was “Christian” at the time of invasion of the Native American people, by Europe I presume you mean England (the invaders). At the time of the invasion of Native Americans less than 5% of the population of England and elsewhere in Europe was Christian. Therefore such an invasion could hardly be said to represent Christians could it? It was the heathens of England and Europe who did the invasions of other nations and if you study up on history it is the Christians who, alongside decent unbelievers, have fought for the freedom of others where ever the principles of good treatment of others are breeched.
February 1st, 2006 at at 11:21 pm
I don’t claim it SS, it’s a fact. I listed the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch, as well as the English, or do Catholics not count in your definition of Christian? All of those countries were anywhere from 95-99% Christian. Jews made up anywhere from 1 to 5% of the population of those countries. What friggin religion do you think the Spanish conquistadors were following when they conquered the Americas for Spain and Christ you knucklehead?
February 2nd, 2006 at at 12:34 am
Thomas,
Are you seriously saying that you believe that the English were a 95 – 99% Christian country when it invaded the American and Australian natives? Well I think the writers of history books and anyone alive in that era would laugh you to scorn on that point. The Spanish had forced Catholic conversions that does not count, true Christianity is freely chosen by its adherents, if it is not it is a religious perversion not Christianity.
February 2nd, 2006 at at 10:32 am
SS, tell me then, what religion were the Europeans following if as you say only about 5% were Christian? Remember, where talking about the years 1500 to 1700, not 500 to 700.
February 2nd, 2006 at at 7:33 pm
Tk,
Seeing as you are immunised as an atheist against hearing any truth I speak I have decided to let a fellow atheist historian answer your question of the religous beliefs of Europeans between 1500 – 1700 AD to demonstrate the percentage of people who were Christians at that time and the true nature of war declared in the name of Christianity.
Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715
By the beginning of the 16th century, the medieval Church and all that it represented, entered a period of profound crisis. By this time, the Church was nearly fifteen centuries old. Throughout its history the Church always had to confront problems both within its organization and from without. But by 1500, these problems rose to the surface and the Church would shake at its very foundation.
Political philosophers like Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) had already rejected the medieval idea that popes were superior to kings (see Lecture 1). As a citizen of Renaissance Florence, Machiavelli was a Christian, yet he distrusted and disliked the clergy. He saw no need to reform the Church and Christianity because his secular theory of the state was based on the notion that religion and faith was nothing more than the cement which held society together.
A second problem of the period concerned the merchants, bankers and artisans of Europe’s largest cities and towns who resented the fact that local bishops of the Church controlled all of their commercial and economic activities. Although capitalism as a form of economic organization had not yet infiltrated Europe, these producers and money-makers knew that more money and power was theirs if only their lives were less regulated by the Church. Again, I think what we are witnessing here is the development of a secular concept of work and acquisition. Yet another problem facing the Church was that in the 16th century there were numerous reformers who were openly criticizing the Church for its numerous offenses. Priests married and then took mistresses, holy offices were bought and sold for the highest price, incompetence among the clergy became the rule, the congregation of more and more people in towns and cities perhaps exposed the amorality and immorality of the clergy. In a word, the problem was corruption.
Meanwhile, peasants in England, Italy, France, Germany and elsewhere were also on the move. They began to revolt openly against both the clergy and the aristocracy. Their grievances were the most complicated of all — their revolt was against political, economic, social and religious authority. And despite the Inquisition, the work of the Dominicans and Franciscans, and even a holy crusade, heretics and heresies continue to grow more numerous and more vocal.
In the end, the Reformation smashed the medieval synthesis and destroyed the unity of the Christian matrix. Any hope for religious unity was now hopelessly impossible, as the events of the late 16th and 17th centuries will demonstrate. The Church was shattered, witchcraft flourished, and Protestantism itself fragmented into numerous sects. Meanwhile, the power of monarchs increased and, according to Max Weber, the Reformation justified the “spirit of capitalism. By 1560, a Protestant Reformation had clearly been made, a reformation that was perhaps inevitable. As an institution, the Church was controlled by men. As such, it was subject, like any other institution, to greed, arrogance, cynicism and power. It was, in the end, subject to human nature itself.
In the 1560s, the Dutch revolted against Philip II (1527-1598, r. 1556-1598) of Spain, the greatest power in 16th century Europe. Philip understood the commercial greatness of the Dutch, but the influence of Lutherans, Anabaptists and Calvinists in the Netherlands led to a social revolt in which Philip was clearly the loser. The Protestants were driven into rebellion which forced the Spanish government to maintain an army by raising taxes in loyal provinces. By 1575, the Protestants were united under William of Orange (1533-1584) against the tyranny of Philip. Meanwhile, the Scottish rebelled against Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587), a Catholic who was supported by Spain. And then in 1588, the Spanish attempted an armed naval assault upon the English. The Spanish Armada was a failure for the Spanish government and spelled the ultimate decline of Spain as a dominant power on the Continent. The Thirty Years’ War (see above) was fought first in Bohemia over the issue of religious differences but soon involved every European nation. And during the English Civil War (see Lecture 7) of 1640-1660, the English beheaded their king in 1649. All of these conflicts were inspired by religious differences owing to the Reformation, and all of these conflicts had political, economic and social ramifications.
By 1660, there was also a lengthy tradition of witchcraft in European history. The practice of witchcraft always lay under heavy suspicion but it was also an integral part of everyday life in Europe. There were basically two kinds of witchcraft. The white variety involved healing and fortune-telling, while the black variety concerned the conjuring of evil powers by a curse or by manipulating objects. The Church interpreted witchcraft in its own way. Witches entered a bond with Satan in order to work against God. Witches held secret meetings and had sexual relations with Satan. By the 13th century, bishops and popes prosecuted witches for heresy, which is not really that surprising since the 12th and 13th centuries constituted the great age of heresy. I imagine the point is this — witchcraft became an issue because the Church made it so. The number and availability of printed books helped feed the Church’s hysteria that witchcraft was part of a diabolical plot to overthrow God.
By 1700, the witchcraft craze died down in England, the Netherlands and in Spain. There are two reasons why this happened. The Reformation triggered an intellectual backlash that led some people to argue that there was too much religious fanaticism or enthusiasm. The intellectual developments of the 16th and 17th centuries produced an atmosphere which implied that Human Reason was capable of understanding the world and man’s place in it. By the time of the 18th century Enlightenment, the goal was not so much to do away with religion or faith, but to bring it into accordance with reason. In other words, whatever could not stand the test of reason ought to be abandoned. But there is perhaps a more important reason why witchcraft became less popular. By 1700, the elite groups of European society began to regard astrology, witchcraft and any other form of magic, as the sole property of the common people. In other words, the 17th century witnessed a division in culture and tradition. Whereas in an earlier period, wealthy and poor shared similar beliefs, by 1700 two distinct cultures had made their appearance — one called high or elite, the other low or popular.
The History Guide | Feedback |
Copyright © 2002 Steven Kreis
Last Revised — May 12, 2004
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html
February 3rd, 2006 at at 10:10 pm
Can someone tell me what bible says about violence against nonbelievers? i cant be bothered to read it myself
February 3rd, 2006 at at 11:36 pm
Nepoleon,
“Love your neighbour as yourself” “Love your enemy” “Esteeme others more than yourself” These and countless others apply to believers and unbelievers alike the Christian is required to “Love as God love the world and gave Himself for it”.
February 4th, 2006 at at 11:17 pm
Nepoleon,
“Love your neighbour as yourself” “Love your enemy” “Esteeme others more than yourself” These and countless others apply to believers and unbelievers alike the Christian is required to “Love as God love the world and gave Himself for it”.
Right. That and all of the horrible stuff I’ve been talking about every Sunday for 30 weeks now.
February 4th, 2006 at at 11:40 pm
sorry, i’ve been on this side a couple of times. i didnt notice it has parts.
my mistake
February 5th, 2006 at at 2:25 am
u are ok Nepoleon, no need for appology, you did nothing wrong at any point. Thanks I am for this great site.
February 5th, 2006 at at 8:15 am
Well, you must nevertheless admit that the Judeo-Christian deity is not an unalloyed god of peace and love. Exodus 15:3 reminds us that “The Lord is a god of war.” God does not love everyone: “The Lord trieth the righteous, but the wicked and and he that loves violence his soul hateth.” Psalm 11:5.
He demonstrates his love for his enemies at Numbers 31:1-18, where God demands an act of genocide. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 7:1-5: “When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”
A Gentile observing a Hebrew ritual is to be put to death, according to Numbers 3:38.
God also demands blood for sexual improprieties: “If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (The word of God goes on to tell us that if a man rapes a virgin, he can pay 50 shekels to the girl’s father and marry her, and if this happens, then no crime has been committed.) And homosexuality is punishable by death, according to Leviticus 20:13, which was affirmed in the New Testament at Romans 1:26-27.
However, God seemingly approves of incest in the case of Moses’ parents, according to Exodus 6:20.
He’s also not very fond of domestic disputes: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” Leviticus 20:9; see also Exodus 21:15 and Leviticus 20:09.
Lest we encounter the objection that this is all “Old Testament stuff,” remember that Jesus affirmed the Old Testament in every way, at Luke 12:51. Jesus reminds us that he follows the teachings of a warrior god at Matthew 10:34, and asks that his followers get weapons even at the expense of clothing themselves, Luke 22:36. People who do not accept the teachings of Jesus may expect violence visited upon them by God, according to Mark 6:11. After Jesus leaves the scene, his followers continue his tradition of intolerance, forced conversions, and killings, at Acts 3:23 and 5:1-5.
Now, with all that said, I’ll readily admit that there are profoundly moral and compassionate things to be found in the Christian Bible as well as all of the above injustices. What I suggest is that the teachings of Islam are no better nor any worse than the teachings of Christianity or Judaism. All of these religions derive from similar cultures in the same general geographic region of the world; all purport to worship the same god; all of them make the propsective worshipper an “offer they can’t refuse” in the sense that the choices are to worship and obey, or die and go to hell. Christianity has gone through some times in which those acting in its name have not comported themselves honorably (the Crusads and the Reformation stand out as particularly brutal periods of Christian history), but that does not mean the religion itself lacks value or that it cannot be an impetus to peace. Islam is no different.
February 5th, 2006 at at 8:21 am
And as to the point about what proportion of the Europeans who ventured into the New World were Christians or not, I think SS is trying to draw a distinction between Catholics and Protestants. Both Catholics and Protestants self-identify as Christians and should therefore be considered Christians in the eyes of history. When comparing Muslims and Christians, we do not draw distinctions between Sunnis and Shiites; when comparing Jews to Christians we do not suggest that Orthodox Jews are “real” Jews and Reform Jews are not; neither should be distinguish between Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant sects of Christianity. That Europeans chose to fragment Christianity into different sects and to commit violence upon one another as a result of differences between those sects does not change the fact that Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth century were overwhelmingly Christian — atheism was punishable by death and Jews and Muslims were being forcefully converted to Christianity under pain of torture, all in the name of God.
February 5th, 2006 at at 10:36 am
Social Scientist:
re: the extended quote about the percentage of Europe that was Christian at the time of the invasion of North America and the subsequent violence towards the indigenous people here:
Nowhere in your quote is there any justification whatsoever for the somewhat fabulous assertion that in the time period 1500 to 1700 Europe was 5% Xtian. A discussion of the difficulties and intellectual differences of the day in no way justifies this assertion. Mention of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Inquisition, similarly, does nothing as far as offering evidence for this wildly improbable statistic. Mention of European class struggle has almost nothing to do with an assertion about the statistical prevalence of the dominant religion of the day. Cetrtainly as practiced by the Haupsbergs or Philip II or Richard the Lion Hearted or Arthur of Camelot, Christianity was wildly different than it was for some peasant cabbage farmer deep in the heart of the Holy Roman Empire. But that does nothing to dispute the fact that the vast majority of the population of Europe during that time would, if asked, identify themselves as Xtian. Europe is probably today more secular and less Xtian than at any point in the last 1500 years and is probably still something like 40% Xtian.
The fact that witchcraft and paganism existed and were persecuted and were declared heretical (and therefore existed in enough numbers to receive some official notice) IN NO WAY justifies the claim that they (pagans and wiccans) made up 95% of the European population, any more than current flag-burning statues identify those who would burn flags in the USA as a significant majority of the American populace. A report on their existence and development is only slightly more engaging than the Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster’s claim that the decline in Pirates since the late 1700’s is the cause of global warming. (See it here.)
Unless you are confusing Catholic (a particular branch of Xtianity) for Xtian (which includes all of the Protestant sects, as well as Catholicism and probably a few others I don’t know about or don’t remember enough to include here), it still seems to me that you have somewhat distorted your perception of history in order to suit your agenda? I don’t mean for this comment to have the sinister undertones it might be taken to have – I don’t have anything against being pro-Chistian, or Islam, or Judaism (the religion I was born into, but don’t practice). I do have a problem with the fact that religion, and a desire to see it for the positive influence it can be, and indeed often has been, often clouds people’s perception of little things like “facts” and “evidence” and “historical record.”
Also, having said all that, the original assertion was that Xtians have, indeed, practiced a history of violence towards unbelievers and assorted uninitiated heathen peoples, with the example given being the discovery and occupation of the “New World.” Whatever the dominant European religion of the day (and it WAS Christianity, IMO), Columbus, PIsarro, Magellan, Vespucci, Cortez – all of the explorers would CERTAINLY have identified themselves as Christian, and viewed themselves as on a mission to absorb these undiscovered lands and riches into the Christian fold, and viewed the conversion of the indigenous peoples as part of their mission as Christians.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that no Christian nation has ever started a war of aggression?
I will wait for you to reassert that point before responding to it in the hopes that I am misunderstanding you.
To all who are participating here, thanks, you just made my Sunday as I discovered this site. I am not atheist, nor religious (personally spiritual? Some such nonsense, I make no claim to theocratic/philosophical consistency).
February 5th, 2006 at at 9:06 pm
Transplanted Lawyer Says:
February 5th, 2006 at 8:15 am
“Well, you must nevertheless admit that the Judeo-Christian deity is not an unalloyed god of peace and love. ”
I do agree with this point Lawyer, Romans 11:22 emphasises this point strongly by saying ‘Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.’ There is no triffling with God, He is a tender Lord of Love, but He is also the Captain of His Army in battles and is also the judge who will dispense justice to those who have oppressed and harmed others. But having said that there can be no denial of His Grace and Love demonstrated in His longsuffering patience with truly evil people who have the future potential to turn from evil.
I draw no distinction between Catholic and Protestants as coming under the category of Christian in the 1500 – 1700 despite the differences of doctrinal points between them and my personal belief which adheres to the Bible and which departs from its teachings. I suppose the point I was trying to bring out in that history quote was that there was wide spread witchcraft, heresy among Christians, division of doctrinal beliefs leading to a reformation, forced conversions to Christianity which a perversion of freely exercising faith and choosing God, and corruption and hypocracy on both sides (Catholic and Protestant alike) doctrinally, in their treatment of unbelievers or each other. Therefore I was putting this history on display for you to guage whether you believe that in this total state of chaos, heresy, witchcraft and apostasy that more than 5% of these Christians (the marytrs) could be considered to be true Christians by Bible standards. I leave the conclusion up to you, my opinion on this is that around 5% of Christians in that era mentioned in history were the real thing while the church and state were joined and division, heresy, forced conversion and corruption in the church ranks prevailed. I respect your right to disagree with this opinion.
February 6th, 2006 at at 7:17 am
A graceful response, SS. I appreciate that.
February 6th, 2006 at at 12:53 pm
SS, there was no witchcraft going on back then. What you had was Christian and peasant ignorance laying the groundwork for a belief in witchcraft and demons. A peasant would get into some kind of dispute with another villager in the marketplace. Later on, the peasant’s pregnant wife miscarries. The peasant would go to his local Church authority and claim that the person with whom he had an argument with cast a spell that caused his wife’s baby to be born stillborn. Of course, it didn’t matter that with the primitive conditions of the day, such things were likely to be common. The man accused of casting the spell would be arrested and tortured. Under torture, he would confess that he did want a spell cast on the peasant’s wife, but in an attempt to obtain leniency from the church, he would deny that he himself cast the spell but rather that he went to an old crone who lives in a hut in the forest, and that she cast the spell for him. The authorities would then proceed to arrest the old hag and torture her until she confessed (you must remember, these people were already deemed guilty and they would be tortured until they confessed, which would then give the Church “proof” that the person was indeed guilty). This had eery parallels to the trials in the USSR under Stalin in which a person was arrested and was tortured until guilt was admitted. The Salem witch trials operated under the same principle.
The same thing with demons. Christianity taught that sex was a sin, and that the naked human body was something to be ashamed of. Therefore, in the monasteries and convents and so forth, you would have all of these men and women brainwashed into believing that sex was evil, but at the same time, like the rest of us mortal humans, they could not conquer their innate sexual desires, so they would masturbate, or engage in sexual activities with other monks or nuns, and feeling ashamed afterwards, would attribute the sexual activities they engaged in to being tempted by a succubus demon.
As for heresy, a heretic is merely someone of the same faith whose doctrines are on the losing end of a fight. The Hussites of Bohemia believed that they were Christians, just as the followers of the Catholic Church who persecuted them believed that they were Christians upholding the authority of the one true Church.
The vast majority of Europeans would identify themselves as Christians, as Nick discusses above. Granted, many Europeans were probably only nominal Christians, but what it says about the repressive nature of the Church or whatever protestant sect in power in any given area of Europe was that no one was allowed to be anything else without fear of persecution.
February 6th, 2006 at at 4:23 pm
Tk,
Well said particularly the last paragraph.
February 6th, 2006 at at 9:05 pm
As a judge I see God as a gracious judge. He has set a penalty for sin (hell) much like a human judge sets a penalty for crime. God like a human judge will only judge people on the evidence, but unlike human judges who may not always have access to all the facts, He will have all the facts and all the evidence to decide conclusively a person’s guilt as a thief, liar, murderer etc. God is a just and honest judge much like good human judges He will not let the rapist or thief go penalty free when it is proven that they have indeed committed the crime. But unlike a human judge God is also an advocate and a rescuer of those who break the law. He is like a judge that judges justly and finds the person guilty of the crime and passes the sentence of $250,000 fine or jail on the person but has already set up an advocate on their behalf to pay that fine so they do not do jail time if they will accept His forgiveness and restoration to what He has created them to be. How many judges judge justly then pay the fine so that you are redeemed from the penalty of the law? This is the grace of God.
February 7th, 2006 at at 7:53 am
Social Scientist Says:
How many judges judge justly then pay the fine so that you are redeemed from the penalty of the law?
so the rapists go unpunished? what a currupt judge! accept my bribe and i dont care what you did/do, dont accept and you’ll pay.
February 7th, 2006 at at 8:20 am
I prefer to go to hell myself. I read a kurdish poem talking about the state of hell and heaven, which changed my perspective on hell.
Its states that as people of heaven are obedient and do not think for their own (thats why they are there in the first place) they are more likely be lazy and sit around and not care about the state of heaven and as they no longer have to obey by the word of god and so are free to do as they choose there will be a lot of disagreements and fights (they havent learned on earth how to act morally if they are not going to be punished), so that heaven no longer would be such an attractive destination.
On the other hand, most intellectuals do not believe (or dont have a strong believe) in god/s, there will be more intellectuals in hell. and after all these thousands of years, they surely have find out a way to get rid of its fire and have designed a heaven over it for themselves.
I mean if god’s creations can go so wrong as such that an angle becomes a devil, surely one cannot exclude the possibility of hell becoming a heaven.
February 7th, 2006 at at 5:52 pm
Roya,
I assure you there will be no cushy jobs or intellectual persuits in hell that make it like heaven. Hell does not suddenly become nice just because you can imagine it nice in your mind, as Dion’s song says “Well you can go to College you can go to School, but if you don’t have Jesus you’re an educated fool.” The largest percentage of academic graduates and nobel prize winning academics are Christians and Jews in this world, so while it is a romantic dream to imagine hell full of intellectuals in reality here on this earth where such intellectuals are produced, schooled and recognised that proposal does not measure up with reality. I am a university student and the Christian numbers enrolled on campus or external study and at the graduation ceremony (where it counts), far outweighs the number of non-Christians. In addition Christians graduate in greater numbers with higher grades and dominate the honour students roll and multiple discipline (different degrees) numbers. There is nothing intellectual or smart about wanting to be cast into a burning lake of brimstone and fire to burn eternally without dying. If the Kurds were so smart and intellectual how come they so easily fell prey to Sadam Hussein and other Arab nations? What chance will they have against God in hell? And who rescued them? Wasen’t it soldiers from a predominantly Christian nation? oops! Food for thought.
As to your suggestion that if angels can become devils that makes it possible for hell to become heaven, that is laughable going from an angel to a devil is a demotion not a promotion Roya!!!
But if mankind and angels did not have free will to choose to do good or bad, then they would not be made in the image of God in that He has free-will to express His personage as He sees fit, no one stops Him and no one can restrain Him, but there will come a day when all those who have used their free-will to mar the image of God will find out that He can stop and restrain them!
February 7th, 2006 at at 6:33 pm
Here is an interesting article by Amir Taheri on Israeli/Arab relations:
Amir Taheri: Israel must claim victory over Palestine
Sharon’s policy will endure because it makes strategic sense
January 09, 2006
AS Ariel Sharon fights for his life, his sudden removal from centre stage has already had the effect of a political earthquake in the Middle East. It is not only Israel that ponders the post-Sharon era with apprehension. Judging by the coverage of the Arab media in recent days, the broader Middle East is also concerned about the imponderables of a post-Sharon era.
While the al-Jazeera satellite channel was airing the jubilant utterances of radical Arabs over Sharon’s stroke, more moderate Arabs appearing on the rival channel al-Arabiyah acknowledged that the Israeli leader had become the Palestinians’ “most serious partner for peace”.
Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak has described Sharon as “a man of peace”, echoing his Tunisian counterpart Zin El Abidine Ben Ali’s “esteem and admiration” for the Israeli leader. Sharon also has a surprising number of friends in other Arab countries, from Oman to Mauritania, Qatar, Jordan and Morocco. In the wider Muslim world, Sharon has fostered a “working dialogue” with leaders in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, with a view to establishing diplomatic ties.
Things were different even a year ago, as far as Sharon’s image in Arab and Islamic countries was concerned. At that time the former general was seen by many as the quintessential “Zionist enemy”, as portrayed by years of propaganda.
What changed that was what Israel’s interim prime minister Ehud Olmert describes as “the Gaza magic”. This was the first time that an Israeli leader had made a unilateral withdrawal from disputed Arab territory without being subjected to internal or external pressures. At the same time, Sharon proceeded with the construction of his “security fence”, and insisted there would be no further unilateral withdrawals.
All that gave Sharon a new image, one that resembles a holograph.
Seen from one angle, Sharon appeared as the man of peace that a majority of Israelis have longed for since the 1980s. The fact that he promised that there would be no more withdrawals did not bother the “peace-now” Israelis, who were more convinced by what they saw in Gaza than what they heard from Sharon.
Seen from another angle, the Sharon holograph presented a leader who had given up Gaza in a tactical move to be better able to hang on to the West Bank. That image appealed not only to Likudniks, Sharon’s former party colleagues, but also to the more enthusiastic partisans of Greater Israel. They preferred to ignore what they saw in Gaza and focus on what Sharon said about his determination not to make any more unilateral concessions.
The holograph earned Sharon a place that no previous Israeli leader had enjoyed in public opinion. According to most recent polls, almost two-thirds of all Israelis believed that Sharon was the man to lead the country at this moment. That would almost certainly not have been translated into Knesset seats for Kadima, Sharon’s new party, in March’s election. But enough of that support would have come in the form of votes to give Sharon a lead to reclaim the premiership.
Was the Sharon holograph an illusion or, worse still, a political conjuror’s trick to mislead friends and confuse enemies? No. Sharonism, to coin a phrase, reflects the complex realities of the Israel-Palestine solution.
Sharon is an instinctual politician, an increasingly rare breed, in the sense that he can cut through the metapolitical stuff that renders political decision-making difficult or, at times, impossible.
As a professional soldier, Sharon saw that Israel had won all its wars with the Arabs in military terms but failed to translate those victories into lasting political gains. At some point he must have wondered why.
For a war to be won it is not enough for one side to claim victory, although that is essential. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. The problem in the case of the Arab-Israeli wars, however, was that the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat.
This was a novel situation in history, throughout which the victor and the vanquished had always acknowledged their respective positions and moved beyond it in accordance with a peace imposed by the victor.
In the Israeli-Arab case this had not been done because each time the UN had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.
In this novel situation, bizarre new concepts were invented to prevent the normal mechanisms of war and peace from functioning. These include such concepts as land for peace and peace with justice.
There is, however, not a single instance in history in which the winner of a war has given the loser any land in exchange for peace. Nor is there a single instance in which justice and peace have gone together as Siamese twins. In every case the winner wins the land and gives the loser peace. In every case the peace that is imposed is unjust to the loser and just to the winner.
Without going far back into history, it is sufficient to glance at some of the dozens of wars in Europe, Asia and Africa in recent decades to see that they all ended with a peace designed, if not dictated, by the winner. Thus for more than 50 years Israel and the Arabs have been asked to achieve what no other warring parties have ever achieved.
Israel-Palestine became the only conflict to defy a resolution. Successive Israeli governments preferred to wait until there was a Palestinian partner that would accept the kind of peace Israel could offer. This was mirrored by the Palestinians, who were asked by their Arab brothers and others in the UN to wait until Israel offered a peace they would like.
Sharon understood that if such a formula remained in force there would never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It was necessary for the victor to claim victory, regardless of what anyone else said. It was also necessary for the victor to take unilateral action by imposing the peace it could live with.
Paradoxically, many Palestinians say, even in public, that they would rather see Sharonist unilateralism at work than a prolongation of the stalemate that has lasted since 1948. It was clear that Sharon, his denials notwithstanding, was planning to claim victory for Israel and impose an Israeli peace.
That Israeli peace would see Gaza and perhaps up to 90 per cent of the West Bank allocated to a putative Palestinian state, while Israel would demarcate its permanent border on the ground, part of which would run along the security fence.
That would not be the kind of land-for-peace deal that UN resolutions have called for since 1968, nor would it satisfy the radical Arabs, who would not see any peace as just without the elimination of Israel.
Sharon may never return to the helm. But Sharonism need not fade away. It is still possible for Israel to create on the ground the kind of peace it can live with and then let the Palestinians decide whether or not they, too, can live with it. My guess is that they will.
• Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam. He is a member of http://www.benadorassociates.com.
© The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17763837%255E7583,00.htm
February 7th, 2006 at at 7:33 pm
Roya says,
“so the rapists go unpunished? what a currupt judge! accept my bribe and i dont care what you did/do, dont accept and you’ll pay. ” It is the difference between rehabilitation and forgiveness or jail punishment and remaining evil as a repeat offender. Make no mistake though the unrepentant rapist or murderer will not go free with grace, that one will have an eternal punishment from an eternal God that greatly outweighs what a human judge or any other judge can impose on a person which is to kill them but God can kill your body then deal with your resurrected body for all eternity.
Everything God does is done in love. To understand this it is like understanding how you would feel if your teenage daughter was raped and killed. Immediately you would say the man who did this deserves to die to in your anguish over your daughter. But what if you found out it was your own teenage son that had done this? Suddenly it is a double woe to you, your daughter is dead and your son is a defiled person in your eyes – but you love him. So while you agree with the penalty your son recieves, all of a sudden you are calling the best lawyers and psychiatrists in the hope of redeeming and restoring your son am I right?
This is the position that God is in. Every time there is a rape or murder or theft it is his child that he loves that has perpetrated this crime against his other equally loved child.
February 7th, 2006 at at 8:34 pm
your daughter is dead and your son is a defiled person in your eyes – but you love him.
dont presume please. i would actual be far more furious. i may tortured him myself.
Going from an angel to a devil is a demotion not a promotion Roya!!!
why? a devil is free to do as he wishs and an angle is not. its like a slave becoming a free man on his own.
Anyways thats not my point. you’r attacking the straw man.
February 8th, 2006 at at 12:35 am
I did not use a straw man Roya, neither did I attempt to attack you point with my parable about the teenage children but rather to demonstrate my point in a more understandable manner. Obviously the love of God is something you cannot identify with in that you would not try to salvage your son but may torture him. But it is not unusual that you do not identify with God’s kind of love, neither is it an indication that you are any less loving than the average person just less loving than the Christian God. You did however seem to identify with God’s anger at the rape and murder so that is a start to understanding how you are made in His image and therefore have the same capacity as Him though human adults are but children in His eyes or at best young adults (teenagers) as far as coming up to the standard image of the love and holiness of God.