www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Tom Friedman Op-Ed in today's NYT

Dear Dave,

My own belief is that any religion or person who does not live with Jesus at the centre of their being will go astray, commit violence etc.

This includes nominal Christians in history and today.

It includes me because I have hurt people in my life, even though I say that I belong to Christ.

That is why Christians in general, and me in particular, have no business pointing fingers at anyone.

"Jihad" can be interpreted, and has been interpreted, to mean struggle with evil, even spiritual struggle.

One can choose how to interpret the Christian Scriptures too. Christianity has quite a few denominations to its credit.

Al-Hallaj was a Muslim heretic. He believed that man was an incarnation of God. And for this he was . . . crucified.

Islam has produced some beautiful flowering of holiness.

As far as intolerance is concerned, they haven't cornered the market there.

Rather than see this as a function of religion, I tend to see it as a function of the level to which religious cultures and nations resist the pluralistic democracy that comes with modernization and enlightenment.

Christians have just come out of their former intolerant ways sooner.

Theologians tend to look at religion independently of culture, society and historical social movements.

But when we do that, we come up with a very skewed view of religion in relation to the world.

Alex

Light!


"The past does not speak for us; it can only speak to us. But we must live our Muslim lives in the present."--Muslim preacher

I believe Christians will find this article interesting since it presents the diverse interpretations of jihad while refusing to sugar-coat that which many, including Muslims, find
anti-thetical to modern universal standards of civilization.


Jihad by Douglas Streusand

www.ict.org.il/articles/jihad.htm [ict.org.il]

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Abdul Khan, the Servants of God, and Muslim Pacifism

"He who forgives and is reconciled, his reward is with God."- Quran

An Islamic Case for Pacifism

The Pathans living in the North-West Frontier Province of British India early in this century had established a long-standing reputation for being skilled in the arts of both war and interpersonal violence. The British sent more than 100 military expeditions there during their colonial rule, but were never able to completely subdue and control them.

Arising from within this culture at the end of the 19th century, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the son of a respected chieftain, felt a religious call to serve God by helping uplift his people through social reform. Against the opposition of the British and the local mullahs (who did not favor development), he organized an action group known as the Khudai Khidmatgar, or the "Servants of God." They became an army of nonviolent soldiers pledged to fight, not with guns, but with their lives. The nature of Khan's organization is disclosed in the oath taken by the first recruits:

I am a Servant of God, and as God needs no service, but serving his creation is serving him,

I promise to serve humanity in the name of God.

I promise to refrain from violence and from taking revenge.

I promise to forgive those who oppress me or treat me with cruelty.

I promise to refrain from taking part in feuds and quarrels and from creating enmity.

I promise to treat every Pathan as my brother and friend.

I promise to refrain from antisocial customs and practices.

I promise to live a simple life, to practice virtue, and to refrain from evil.

I promise to practice good manners and good behavior and not to lead a life of idleness.

I promise to devote at least two hours a day to social work. Later, members signed a pledge with these provisions:

I put forth my name in honesty and truthfulness to become a true Servant of God.

I will sacrifice my wealth, life, and comfort for the liberty of my nation and people.

I will never be a party to factions, hatred, or jealousies with my people; and will side with the oppressed against the oppressor.

I will not become a member of any other rival organization, nor will I stand in an army.

I will faithfully obey all legitimate orders of all my officers all the time.

I will live in accordance with the principles of nonviolence.

I will serve all God's creatures alike; and my object shall be the attainment of the freedom of my country and my religion.

I will always see to it that I do what is right and good.

I will never desire any reward whatever for my service.

All my efforts shall be to please God, and not for any show or gain.

The organization's name decreed that its purpose was explicitly religious. The organizers emphasized that members' commitment should be to God, not to an organization or a human leader. Significantly, Servants of God did not simply vow to use nonviolence in a crusade to oust the British. They vowed to eliminate violence in their relations with other Pathans as well as with anyone else. The Pledge was designed to change their way of life. "I should like to make it clear that the nonviolence I have believed in and preached to my brethren of the Khudai Khidmatgars," explained Khan, "affects all our life, and only that has permanent value." In his view, "the Khudai Khidmatgars must... be what our name implies--servants of God and humanity--by laying down their own lives and never taking any life." In this regard the Servants of God adopted a more comprehensive and strict commitment to nonviolence than did the Congress movement in India, which adopted nonviolent action as a tactic but refused to endorse nonviolence in principle.

The Servants of God

Khan established an officer corps which organized members in platoons and taught recruits basic army discipline. Although members bore no arms, they drilled in miliary fashion. The discipline on nonviolence was absolute, with no mixing of violent tactics. Training also included religious instruction. But rather than being hardened to hate their opponents, they were taught forgiveness and tolerance. Khan and other leaders wove into the training examples of toleration and forgiveness from Islamic history.

They emphasized the Qur'anic injunction: "He who forgives and is reconciled, his reward is with God."
Khan, as Gandhi once remarked, "was consumed with deep religious fervor. His politics, if he had any, were derived from his religion." Khan believed that nonviolence was the "weapon of the Prophet." Khan noted that sabr is counselled repeatedly in the parts of the Qur'an that were revealed during the early years of the Prophet's teaching in Mecca. Only after the flight to Medina and the acquisition of substantial political power did God's revelations endorse war in defense of the faith. Khan noted that the early stance taken by Mohammed was to hold firmly to truth, the literal meaning of satyagraha, without retreating or retaliating violently. Khan's "genius" was to extend the meaning of sabr to the renunciation of all violent retaliation.

During the 1930s and early 1940s, Muslim activists in the Servants of God stood up to the British and remained resolutely nonviolent in the face of recurrent British provocation and violence, even though they had to endure humiliations, jail, flogging, destruction of their homes, and mass shootings. There is no evidence of any Servant of God killing an adversary, despite the organization's large membership--it reached 120,000 at its height--and repeated provocations by the British. Khan himself spent 15 years in British prisons during these years, often in solitary confinement.

The Role of Religion in Choosing Nonviolence

This abbreviated case study suggests the following tentative conclusions about how people rooted in an Islamic culture may be inspired by their religious tradition to act boldly yet nonviolently for justice and peace:
Religious affiliation among the Servants of God facilitated a strong identification and discipline among the members. This served them well when they faced enormous stress and personal risk while engaged in nonviolent direct action. Bonds of comradeship enabled them to act courageously, much as small groups of soldiers often do while protecting one another in the heat of battle.
Religious commitments helped recruit people to become activists and motivated them to act boldly rather than to remain politically inert and to acquiesce in unsatisfactory social conditions.

Religious values and motivation provided the basis for defining the group's purposes to serve others and to implement broad social, economic, and political reform, as well as to seek independence from British rule.
Nonviolent action enabled the Pathans to be politically more effective than they had been when using violent tactics. Mass nonviolent action called into question the rulers' purposes and legitimacy and reduced the rulers' capacity to persuade themselves and others that their actions made good sense.

Religious teachings and re-interpretation of religious values, although from a non-pacifist tradition, enabled activists to overcome their time-honored inclination to use violence against their adversaries. This confirms that people who are not pacifist can practice nonviolent action well. Religious motivation need not lead people only to endorse nonviolence as a way of life. It can also motivate people for tactical uses of nonviolence, just as it may motivate people to make tactical uses of violence.

Religious values provided the foundation for choosing nonviolence in principle and as a way of life, although all did not do so. This foundation helped the Servants to be strict in not mixing tactics and to identify not only with other Pathans, but also to extend a thin line of identity across group boundaries to their adversaries, the British and, later, the Hindus, whom they protected against communal violence.
The emphasis on a distinctive Pathan version of satyagraha enabled people to transform their lifestyle and society, not just their military and political strategies, and to live more in harmony with human compassion and truth.


Religious traditions and teachings enabled people to contest the meaning of their tradition for contemporary life. Khan creatively used traditional Islamic precepts to communicate to his people about the need for changes in their tradition. This strategy provided a bridge between the old consciousness and the radically new one they successfully employed. This was a revitalization of religion, not a marginalization of it.

The praxis of Orthodox Christianity has historically always been under severe persecution due its truthfulness. The Christianity of the West has had a poor praxis in relations to non-Western religions and peoples. IMO, I attribute this to a break with Holy Tradition. I can at least admit that there is a hiearchy in the Western Churches(i.e. Rome) that take responsibility for the senseless atrocities committed over the centuries. The whole Orthodox Churches have no equivalent. We may knit-pick on the Russian Orthodox Church under communism for crimes committed against others but the Russian Patriarch was not the Pope of Orthodoxy. Worse is the non-Christian religion such as Islam. It preaches that it does not believe in a hiearchy, no priesthood or a responsible spokesman for Islam as a whole. The Muslim governments have the ability to make and break their very own Muslim cleric spokesmen when it suits there needs. The Caliphite is gone which is the like of a Byzantine Emperor. Islam is a religion that cannot be contained much like runaway Protestantism. Islam does not believe in a critical analysis of itself especially in regards to Islamic historical atrocities and high levels of discrimination against Dhimmis. No Muslims has ever come up to the plate to apologize for the wrongs committed against Christians and non-Christians in lands that were predominately Christians. There is no freedom of religion within Islamic nations. Apostasy is a crime against the Islamic ummah and punishable by death for any Muslims. They lose their estates and inheritances. Christians cannot evangelize in Islamic nations without fear of retribution. But Christians can evangelize other Christians(i.e. Jesuits & Fransiscans & Protestant groups converting Orthodox Christians)in Islamic lands. Christians that live in countries like Eygpt & Sudan are despised by the government. They also encourage & inspire Muslim to hate them. There is so much to say about the wickedness of Islam. It is no surprise that Middle Eastern Christians are leaving quickly! We can blame the Islamic governments and blame Islam for the poor economic disparity that is quite rampant which also entails discrimination. Indeed, Islam has been tolerant towards the People of the Book with the hidden agenda to convert them via discriminitive tactics. It is a warriors faith that desires to conquer the world. Islamic imperialism was and can be a reality. We have amongst us wicked western apologist that defend Islam and its cause. I have heard of western Christians inviting Muslims "scholars" to come to lecture to them about the goodness & purity of Islam while purposely neglecting historical Islamic atrocities. Jihad is now given a political correct meaning as to not offend Muslims. Jihad, despite the ignorant Western or Muslim thought, is the Sixth Pillar of Islam. It has always been a struggle against the House of War (Dar al-Harb) which refuses to accept Islam as its religion. This is the "holy" obligation of every Muslim: to bring the world under Islamic submission to the will of their perceived God. History has shown us how many Islamic attempts there have been to fulfill this hidden duty. Islam will ultimately fail. I believe Islam needs to be revealed for what it is: anti-Christ and anti-Christian. There are many Muslims and Christians that are the best of friends but when it comes to religion everyone goes back to his corner(i.e. Lebanon). I am not promoting any discrimination against Muslims but only revealing the discrimination inherent in Islam. The Quran contains a host of contradictive sayings that are constantly and continously taken out of historical context and applied by Muslims for and against non-Muslims. Islam is a two-faced Dr. Jekyl-Mr.Hyde religion. Islam needs to be reckoned with caution and revealed for what it really is. Islam weakened Orthodoxy via conversions, discriminations, and persecutions. Our Churches turned into mosques, our Christian women are sought out for Islamic marriages in order that their God allow them into Paradise and to allow them 72 virgins/Christian woman & to give multiple births for more of this Muslim breed. They will not be satified until every man, woman and child are under Islam. Christians cannot attain high positions within Islamic governments and have been scapegoats at times. One needs to go live in the Islamic nations to know what I am talking about and converse with the wide diversity of Islamic peoples. Anyways, that's enough for now. One day, I pray to write a book once I have compiled my thoughts & papers together.

"Oh,Lover of the King! Know that your way is to seek the pleasure of that Generous Lord.

When you seek the Beloved's desire and pleasure, seeking your own desire is forbidden."

--Jalaluddin Rumi ( Sufi Muslim and beloved poet of all, including Christians.)

If Arabs and Turks comprised the majority of Islam, and if God forced us to live in the past, I would not be sanguine at all about the future of Christian and Muslim relations.

But Arabs and Turks do not comprise the majority of Islam and their history is not our history and God does not force us to live in the past.

Therefore, I am optimistic that Muslims and Christians can work together, now and in the future, in the hard and difficult task of repairing the earth.

We will not grow weary of the task God has decreed for us, even if others, whether Christians or Muslims choose the way of Shaitan, which is the way of barbarism and hate.

Abdul Khan, pray for us sinners.

Abdur
Mevleviye Sufi

By the grace of God, an unworthy slave of Abdul Khan.

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Ah, Abdur, but the Arabs dominate Islam, clearly. V.S. Naipaul points this out brilliantly in his studies of the "non-Arab" Islamic countries "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief".

I'm waiting for the day when Pakistan and Indonesia (hte two most populous majority Islamic countries) are really considered the leading force of Islam.

Alex --

To my mind the difference is that while the Gospel and example of Christ do not condone violence committed in the name of God, the Qur'an and example of the 'Prophet' do. That makes it simultaneously (1) easier to condemn violent acts committed by Christians in the name of their faith, and (2) harder to contend that violent Islamic acts are not "Islamic" or are "inconsistent with Islam", when in fact the founder of Islam was a rather violent man himself.

Yes, there are bad Christians who have committed sacrilege by killing in the name of God. But the real issue is whether the Muslims who advocate killing in the name of Allah are actually bad Muslims for advocating that (as we are being told by the secular propaganda machine) or are, rather, acting in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an and the example of the 'Prophet'. I contend that, recognizing that there is some diversity of viewpoint on this and other matters in Islam as in other faiths, the latter is closer to the truth than the former, following V.S. Naipaul's assessment of Islam.

Brendan

Brendan,

Can you provide the Qur'an reference that discusses the use of violence? You make an interesting observation in your last post.

Dear Brendan,

It also depends on the tradition that interprets the Quran.

To base oneself on reading the Quran alone without those interpretations would be wrong, it would be to treat the Quran like Evangelicals treat the Bible.

But what difference does it make which sacred text one uses to justify one's violent acts?

Again, it is all based on how one interprets the writings.

Catholic scholars studying Islamic teachings would disagree with you and the scholar you cite.

Have a look at "The Koran in the Light of Christ" where the author compares Muhammd to the Old Testament prophets, finds Muhammad to be, in some ways, more moral than they and even proposes that Christians could place him among the Old Testament prophets.

Again, please don't shoot the messenger here . . .

Also, would you seriously go public and tell American Muslims that their religion teaches them to be violent?

Don't wear anything that can be construed to be a Crusader's Cross when you do so!

Also, speaking of Crusaders. In Whose Name did they wreak havoc with Orthodoxy?

It is no use to quote Scripture here. One needs to belong to the True Faith and that is that!

Alex

Here is an interesting site:

http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm

Dear Friends,

The Psalms too speak of attacking the enemies of God and one in particular calls those happy who take babies and dash them against the rocks.

Muslims in particular would find some of our Holier than Thou attitudes rather amusing, given our violent history with them.

And one of the great mental blocks for some Orthodox are the Crusaders as well.

Alex

Alex,

Another site to read.

http://dianedew.com/islam.htm

Dear Edwin,

The site you mention is an Evangelical site.

They would also contrast the teachings of Catholicism with "true Christianity" in the same way.

Their interpretation of Christianity, at least in some of the examples they present, is also at variance with that of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

This is hardly an objective assessment of the entire Koranic and Muslim tradition.

Look, I believe, like you and Brendan, that Christ is our "All."

I also believe that when the Lord Jesus is not in the centre of our being, we are running along a short route to trouble.

To say that the Muslim terrorists are somehow being "good Muslims" and that they are simply fulfilling their religious obligations is, for one thing, unChristian. It is also a very idealistic viewpoint that doesn't take into account other sources from which Muslim practice derives, including those that interpret the Koran.

What do you tell the Muslim who sees the Christian U.S. as the real terrorist against the Muslim world? Against the (Serbian) Orthodox world in the last dust-up?

I just find this whole discussion to be up in the clouds on this important matter. I guess I just don't get it and so will remove myself from it so you and Brendan can continue to theologize.

Perhaps you can submit your conclusions to the President for his further consideration.

Salaam Alekum,

Alex

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex,

Whether it was an "Evangelical" site or not, I would like to know more why violence is permissable, if not suggested. Of course, there are many other web sites that prove the opposite, but there are also many Christian Churches in ruins too. But politics and religion make strange bedfellows. How many 'heretical' Christians were tortured and killed by the imperial gov't in the name of Christ and for Orthodoxy? I guess one man's violence is another's righteousness.

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Edwin,

Yes, you are right.

All religions have their dark side, their evil pages so to speak.

Heterodox or Orthodox, the histories drip with blood equally.

The Lutherans, for example, were convinced that if one got rid of the papal traditions, and left the bible alone to be believed (sola scriptura) then everyone would believe as they.

They were caught totally off guard by the Anabaptists who also rejected the papal (imperial) traditions, acknowledged only the bible and yet disagreed with the Lutherans.

The Lutherans then slaughtered them.

The Orthodox (also imperial) Church suffered greatly under the Turks and the Turkish Yoke.

So did the later Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviet Yoke.

Both were most definitely "Imperial" Churches.

I work with Muslims. I have helped them organize celebrations of their holidays in the context in which I work. I have gotten to know them and their traditions and their writings, including interpretive writings.

I know they are not violent, at least no less than Christians in history and currently.

It is they who have much to fear from western Christians historically and currently.

We fear each other when we should be loving each other.

Alex