| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 03:49:46 PM |
| Object: |
CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS |
CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS
Forwarded message from "Srinivasan Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@gmail.com>
[ Subject: Christists, hate christists and also islamists
[ From: "Srinivasan Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@gmail.com>
[ Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005
Source - September 2005 Answering islam: a christian-
muslim dialog
Deceptive God, Incompetent Messiah
What Islam Really Teaches About Allah and Jesus
By David Wood
For nearly two thousand years, Christians have proclaimed
Jesus' death and resurrection. Islam rejects both of
these doctrines and offers a different account of what
happened at the cross and afterwards. However, the Muslim
explanation comes at a tremendous price: Their version of
the story portrays God as a horrible deceiver, and Jesus
as the most stupendous failure in the history of the
prophets. Hence, while Muslims claim that "Allah is
Truth"[1] and that Jesus is to be revered as one of
Allah's mightiest prophets, these claims are hollow, for
Islamic dogma comes with a great deal of heresy.
Allah Starts Christianity . . . By Accident
If we examine the teachings of Islam, we find that Allah
not only started Christianity, but also made Christianity
the world's dominant religion. This fact should seem
strange to everyone, for Muslims believe that
Christianity is a false religion. Of course, Muslims will
respond by arguing that Christianity is a false religion
because it was corrupted by man, but that in its original
state it was the message of Allah given to Jesus the son
of Mary.
While there isn't a shred of evidence that the followers
of Jesus ever believed anything similar to Islam, this is
beside the point. According to Islam, Christianity was
corrupted by Allah himself. To understand why Islam
demands such a view, let us review a few facts.
FACT #1: The Qur'an states that Jesus was a messenger of
Allah and a prophet of Islam. Indeed, Surah 19 tells us
that Jesus began preaching Islamic theology the moment he
was born:
And the throes (of childbirth) compelled [Mary] to
betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh,
would that I had died before this, and had been a thing
quite forgotten! Then (the child [i.e. the infant Jesus])
called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely
your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you; And
shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop
on you fresh ripe dates: So eat and drink and refresh the
eye. . . . Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given
me the Book and made me a prophet; And He has made me
blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me
prayer and poor-rate so long as I live; And dutiful to my
mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed; And
peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die,
and on the day I am raised to life.[2]
Jesus continued to preach the message of God throughout
his life, until he was taken to heaven. According to the
Qur'an, the Gospel that Jesus brought was no different
from the message of the prophets before him. Jesus, a
servant and prophet of God, preached Islam:
The same religion has He Established for you as that
Which He enjoined on Noah—That which We have sent By
inspiration to thee—And that which We enjoined On
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain
Steadfast in Religion, and make No divisions therein.[3]
[Jesus] was no more than A servant: We granted Our
favour to him, And We made him An example to the Children
of Israel. . . . When Jesus came With Clear Signs, he
said: "Now have I come To you with Wisdom, And in order
to make Clear to you some Of the (points) on which Ye
dispute: therefore fear Allah And obey me. For Allah, He
is my Lord And your Lord: so worship Ye Him: this is A
Straight Way."[4]
Thus, Jesus spent approximately 33 years, from his birth
to his ascension, preaching Islam to the children of
Israel. Prior to his apparent crucifixion, his preaching
was moderately successful, as the conversion of some of
his listeners indicates.
FACT #2: The Qur'an states that Jesus won a number of
followers. Since Jesus spent his entire life preaching an
early form of Islam, his message to his disciples must
have centered around the basic tenets of Islamic
theology. These disciples would have become something
similar to Muslims, which is exactly what Islam teaches
about Jesus' followers:
When Jesus found Unbelief on their [i.e. the Jews']
Part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work Of)
Allah?" Said the Disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We
believe in Allah, And do thou bear witness That we are
Muslims."[5]
And behold! I inspired The Disciples [of Jesus] to
have faith In Me and Mine Messenger; They said, "We have
faith, And do thou bear witness That we bow to Allah As
Muslims."[6]
Then, in their wake, We followed them up With (others
of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of
Mary, And bestowed on him The Gospel; and We ordained In
the hearts of those Who followed him Compassion and
Mercy.[7]
If the Qur'an is correct, then Jesus converted at least
some of the children of Israel to Islam. Though there is
absolutely no historical evidence for any such
conversions, let us assume for the sake of argument that
there were first century Jews who believed the message of
Jesus and became Muslims. As we shall see, this
assumption only presents problems for Muslim apologists.
FACT #3: If there were first-century Jews who converted
to Islam at the preaching of Jesus, they didn't last very
long. The idea that Jesus' earliest followers were
Muslims raises an obvious question: Why have we never
heard of any Muslims existing in the first century? We
have a great deal of historical information about Jesus'
first-century followers, but we have no evidence at all
of any Muslims. Defenders of Islam will most likely claim
here that Christianity wiped out all the records of
Jesus' non-Christian followers, but such a view is
absurd. We have both Christian and non-Christian sources
that report early Christian beliefs, yet none of these
sources mention the existence of any Muslim-Christians.
At the very least, we can say with absolute certainty
that Jesus' death was well-known among ancient
authorities, and that Jesus' earliest followers—including
Peter, James, and John—came to believe that Jesus had
died on the cross for their sins and that he had risen
from the dead. (We also know that the disciples held
Jesus to be the divine Son of God, but this isn't
necessary for my argument.) All four New Testament
Gospels confirm the early Christian belief in Jesus'
death and resurrection, as does the book of Acts. Paul's
letters also repeatedly proclaim Jesus' death and
resurrection. Further, an ancient creed recorded in 1
Corinthians 15 has been dated to within a few years of
Jesus' life and therefore provides extremely early
testimony about Christian beliefs during the time of the
apostles. It reads:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I
also received, that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and
that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the
twelve.[8]
We also have early Christian writings from outside the
New Testament that report the beliefs of Jesus'
followers. For instance, Clement of Rome, who was
ordained as Bishop of Rome by the Apostle Peter, writes
about the apostles' belief in Jesus' resurrection from
the dead.[9] Polycarp, who was ordained by the Apostle
John, mentions Jesus' resurrection numerous times.[10]
There are even several ancient non-Christian sources that
report crucial information about Jesus and the apostles.
According to both the Jewish historian Josephus and the
Roman historian Tacitus, Jesus was crucified during the
reign of Pontius Pilate.[11] Lucian of Samosata, a Greek
satirist, states, "The Christians, you know, worship a
man to this day—the distinguished personage who
introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account."[12] Even the Jewish Talmud reports the
crucifixion of Jesus.[13]
Hence, the most reasonable interpretation of the data is
that the Qur'an is wrong when it says (1) that Jesus
never died and (2) that Jesus' early followers were
Muslims. Nevertheless, let us be generous and grant, in
spite of the facts, that there were a number of first-
century Muslims, but that all evidence of their existence
was later destroyed by Christians. Even if we grant such
an outlandish assumption, this still presents Muslims
with an enormous problem: What happened to these first-
century Muslims? Why was Islam replaced by belief in
Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection from the dead?
Why didn't Jesus' 33 years of preaching amount to
anything that lasted?
Muslims will most likely respond to these questions by
arguing, once again, that Christianity corrupted Jesus'
message and that the Christian church erased all memory
of Jesus' Islamic teachings. However, no true Muslim
should accept this position, for it conceals the true
Qur'anic account of what happened.
FACT #4: The Qur'an states that Allah deceived people
into believing that Jesus had died on the cross.
According to the Qur'an, Jesus was able to convert at
least some Jews to Islam. But we know from history that
Jesus' early followers became convinced of his death and
resurrection. Hence, the obvious reason that there were
no Muslims after Jesus ascended into heaven is that all
of Jesus' followers came to believe that he died on the
cross and rose from the dead. And where did they get this
idea? According to Islam, the idea that Jesus died on the
cross was started by Allah:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus
The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah"—But they killed
him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made To appear
to them, And those who differ Therein are full of doubts,
With no (certain) knowledge, But only conjecture to
follow, For of a surety They killed him not—Nay, Allah
raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in
Power, Wise.[14]
Even if we allow that Allah's only goal was to deceive
the people who wanted to kill Jesus, it is clear that the
disciples also fell for Allah's deception. So who is
responsible for the Christian belief that Jesus died on
the cross? If Islam is correct, God started this idea
when he decided to trick Jesus' enemies into thinking
that they had killed Jesus. This leads to even more
problems. If the deception of the disciples was
unintentional, then we must conclude that God didn't
realize that he was about to start the largest false
religion in the world. If it was intentional, then God is
in the business of starting false religions. Therefore,
the God of Islam is either dreadfully ignorant or
maliciously deceptive.
Muhammad's position also means that Jesus was the
greatest failure in the history of the prophets. He spent
33 years preaching (again, he began preaching Islamic
theology at birth), yet shortly after his death, the
children of Israel were divided into two broad camps.
Those who believed his message became Christians, all of
whom were guilty of the worst sin imaginable (shirk[15]),
while those who rejected his message were guilty of
rejecting one of God's greatest messengers. Thus, whether
people believed in Jesus or rejected him, everyone would
ultimately be condemned and cast into the hellfire. It's
strange, then, that Muslims consider Jesus to be one of
the greatest prophets ever. It seems that he should have
been able to win at least one lasting convert to Islam.
But he didn't. Further, a true prophet of Islam should
have warned his followers not to turn away from Islam by
falling for God's deception. But Jesus never got that
message across. Indeed, millions of people from around
the world now refuse to accept Islam because they believe
that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, a teaching
that goes back to a deceptive God and an incompetent
Messiah.
Allah Spreads the False Religion He Accidentally Started
If we follow the teachings of Islam through to their
logical conclusion, we see that God either intentionally
or unintentionally started Christianity. But the Qur'an
doesn't stop there. Instead of correcting the mess he
made, Allah took Christianity to the next level.
FACT #5: The Qur'an states that Allah helped spread
Christianity. Once God had caused belief in Jesus death
and resurrection, he then worked diligently to aid the
Christians in spreading their false message:
O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of
Allah, as [Jesus] son of Marium said to (his) disciples:
Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples
said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party
of the children of Israel believed and another party
disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against
their enemy, and they became uppermost.[16]
This verse is extremely important, for it means that
Allah helped the followers of Jesus against the Jews who
rejected Jesus, and that these followers "became
uppermost." So who were these followers of Jesus who
became stronger than the Jews? The only people in history
who fit such a description are orthodox Christians, who
believe in Jesus' death, resurrection, and divinity. In
other words, Muslims can't claim here that Jesus' message
was corrupted and that the true Gospel was wiped out,
because that clearly isn't the group that the Qur'an
refers to in this passage. Even if there was a group of
first century Muslim-Christians, this group never gained
an upper hand over anyone. Indeed, they must have been
snuffed out immediately. The only group of Jesus'
followers that ever became strong enough to overshadow
the Jews was composed of Christians, once Christianity
had spread throughout the Roman Empire. These Christians
believed in the foundational doctrines that Christians
hold even today. Yet, according to the Qur'an, Allah
helped these people rise to power!
How, then, did Christianity spread and become the
dominant world religion? It spread by the power of Allah!
And who started the Christian message about Jesus' death
on the cross? God invented this message! Even non-
Christian historians are convinced that Jesus' death is
one of history's best-established facts.[17] Where did
historians get this idea? They got it from God, who
tricked so many people into believing in Jesus' death
that we now have tons of historical evidence for this
event. Since there are roughly two billion Christians on
earth at the present moment, it seems that Jesus and God
are responsible for starting the only religion in the
world that overshadows Islam.
If Islam Is True . . .
Needless to say, I think the Islamic view is extremely
problematic. It requires us to believe that God deceived
billions of people. God even led Jesus' followers astray
by tricking so many people into believing that Jesus
died. This could have been avoided if God hadn't been so
intent on deceiving people. But this leads to more
questions: Why would God want people to believe that
Jesus was dead when he really wasn't? Muslims can't argue
that God did it to protect Jesus from the Jews or Romans,
since God was taking Jesus away safely anyway. So, why
would God want to give Jesus' enemies the satisfaction of
seeing Jesus killed? Why not raise Jesus up without
deceiving everyone about it? There seems to be no reason
at all for God to deceive these people, especially since
such a deception would soon lead to the formation of
Christianity.
This is a difficult pill to swallow, yet Islam forces us
to view the origin of Christianity in this way. If Islam
is true, God deceives people who believe the prophets he
sends. If Islam is true, God spreads false teachings
until they become dominant in the world. If Islam is
true, Jesus, the Messiah, was completely incompetent and
should never have been sent by God, since Jesus' life
ended up leading more people astray than any other life
in history. Because the Muslim view is at odds with any
traditional understanding of God's nature (including the
Islamic understanding), Islam is an incoherent religious
system, which should be rejected by all rational people.
Islam has a poor and contemptible explanation for the
origin of Christianity. If Islam is true, the existence
of Christianity makes no sense at all.
If Christianity Is True . . .
Christianity, on the other hand, easily accounts for the
rise of Islam. Indeed, if Christianity is true, the rise
of Islam makes perfect sense. If it isn't immediately
clear why Christianity entails the rise of religions such
as Islam, consider the following line of thought.
If Christianity is true, then the following statements
are also true:
(1) People can only come to God through Jesus Christ.
(2) Satan is a real spirit being who wants to keep
people from God.[18]
With these statements in mind, let's see if we can figure
out a little something about Satan. Now, if Satan wants
to keep people from God, and if the way to God is through
Jesus Christ, what would Satan's highest priority be? His
main goal wouldn't be to get people to lead immoral lives
(though he would prefer that we do, since this corrupts
God's created order); instead, his primary aim would be
to incite people to reject Christ, for this rejection is
what keeps them separated from God.
But how would Satan convince people to reject Christ? We
should note here that there are plenty of people in the
world who simply don't care about God. Satan doesn't have
to worry about them, because they aren't interested in
salvation anyway. Since his goal is to keep as many
people from God as possible, we would expect Satan to be
more focused on people who are to some extent concerned
with religious matters. There are two ways to keep such
people from God. Satan would either have to convince them
that all "religious talk" is nonsense (i.e. by spreading
secularism, which we see around the world) or he would
have to offer them a substitute for the truth (i.e. a
religion that rejects what is necessary for salvation).
Thus, if Christianity is true, we would expect Satan to
inspire religions that reject Christ's sacrificial death
and resurrection, even though these religions may be
similar to Christianity in other (non-essential)
respects. Now that we have a clear picture of what we
would predict if Christianity were true, let us see how
Islam matches up with our prediction.
The message of Islam is something like this: "Believe in
God. Do good deeds. If you do enough of them, you'll get
to heaven. Respect Jesus, for he was a mighty prophet,
who delivered God's message to the children of Israel.
Also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he
performed many miracles, and that he was the Messiah. But
whatever you do, don't believe that he died on the cross
for your sins. And don't believe that he rose from the
dead. In fact, the worst possible sin you can commit is
to believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Notice that
Islam rejects Christianity's essential requirements for
salvation while accepting certain other doctrines. For
instance, Muslims are commanded to believe in God, but
even Satan and his demons believe in God. Muslims are
commanded to do good deeds, but all religions teach this.
Muslims are allowed to believe certain things about Jesus
(such as his prophet status and virgin birth), but these
beliefs do not save a person. Yet when we come to beliefs
that are essential for salvation—the deity of Christ, his
death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead—we
find that Islam is violently opposed to these crucial
doctrines.[19] Islam, then, looks exactly like the
religion we predicted that Satan would form, for it
denies what is necessary for people to come to God.
There is, of course, an easier way for us to see that
Christianity predicts the rise of Islam. We can look at
some of the prophecies in the Bible. For example, Jesus
said that "Many false prophets will arise and will
mislead many."[20] Paul added that some people would
follow "deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons."[21]
(The phrase "deceitful spirit" is reminiscent of the
Qur'anic claim that Allah deceived people about the death
of Jesus.) The Bible warns over and over again that false
teachers and false prophets would come in order to
distort the Gospel. Apparently, few people in Muhammad's
time heeded this warning.
Final Thoughts
Throughout history, many people have claimed to be
prophets. Indeed, there are many self-proclaimed prophets
even today, and there will be more tomorrow. Suppose a
prophet arises at some point in the future, one who
claims to have a new revelation from God.[22] Both
Muslims and Christians would reject him. But suppose this
prophet says to Muslims, "Brothers, you have believed in
the teachings of Muhammad, but I'm here to tell you that
Islam was started by God to deceive people. The pagans in
Arabia were doing awful things, such as killing their
daughters and marrying hundreds of women. God decided to
punish them by leading them astray and making all of you
believe something that isn't true. But I'm here to tell
you the truth! I am God's greatest prophet, sent to
rescue you from evil!" Would Muslims believe him? Most
certainly wouldn't. But why would Muslims reject this new
prophet? They would reject him because they would refuse
to believe that God knowingly deceived millions of
people. Yet this is exactly what Muslims believe when it
comes to the death of Jesus. So if Muslims believe in a
God who deceives people, even those who follow his
prophets, how can Muslims be confident that they have
been given the truth?
Muslims boast about their reverence for God and their
respect for the prophets. Yet, upon closer examination,
we see that Islam accuses God of one of the greatest
religious deceptions ever. This should cause us to pause
and think for a moment. Why would a religion that prides
itself on its view of God proclaim that God starts false
religions? Why would people who claim to respect Jesus
suggest that he was a tremendous failure? It appears that
Islam is so incredibly desperate to destroy Christianity,
that it doesn't mind destroying itself. In other words,
Islam can only explain away Jesus' death and resurrection
by making God out to be a deceiver, which destroys the
Islamic conception of God. This desperation only makes
sense if Christianity is true, and if Islam was designed
by Satan to keep people from being saved.
Muslims can object to this all they want. They can
continue to proclaim their devotion to God and their
respect for his prophets. But there's something strange
about the way they explain Christianity. There's
something very odd about a God who leads the world
astray. If Islam is true, God and Jesus are failures. But
if Christianity is true, God and Jesus were victorious at
the cross, for the door to salvation was opened to all,
in spite of those who tried to keep the door shut.
Jesus warned his followers that false prophets would
come. He also commanded us not to believe them. One of
the ways we can spot false prophets is by carefully
discerning when their teachings lead to unacceptable
beliefs about God. God is Truth, and he is Love. Islam,
when carefully examined, would have us believe otherwise.
Notes:
1 See Qur'an, 24:25. Unless otherwise noted, Qur'an
quotations are taken from The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an,
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, tr. (Beltsville: Amana Publications,
1989).
2 Qur'an 19:23-26, 30-33, M. H. Shakir, tr. (Elmhurst:
Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Inc., 2002).
3 Qur'an 42:13.
4 Qur'an 43:59, 63-64.
5 Qur'an 3:52.
6 Qur'an 5:111.
7 Qur'an 57:26.
8 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. All Bible quotations are from the
New American Standard Bible.
9 See 1 Clement 42:3.
10 See Polycarp, To the Philippians 1:2, 2:1-2, 9:2,
12:2.
11 See Josephus, Antiquities 18.64, and Tacitus, Annals
15.44.
12 Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13.
13 Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
14 Qur'an 4:157-158. According to Muslim tradition, Allah
made Judas Iscariot look like Jesus, so that Judas was
crucified in Jesus' place.
15 To associate partners with God is to commit the sin of
shirk.
16 Qur'an 61:14, M. H. Shakir Translation.
17 For instance, John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously
anti-Christian "Jesus Seminar," says "That [Jesus] was
crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be"
(Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography [San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1991] p. 145).
18 This spirit being is not to be confused with the
popular image of a harmless red figure with a pointy tail
and a pitchfork!
19 One may wonder why I have not included belief in God
among the doctrines necessary for salvation. I'm
certainly not denying the necessity of belief in God.
However, I do draw a distinction between a necessary
doctrine and a necessary and sufficient doctrine. Belief
in God is necessary for salvation, but it is not
sufficient to produce it. In contrast, the Christian
doctrines of confession of the lordship of Christ and
belief in his resurrection from the dead are necessary
and sufficient. That is, these doctrines are sufficient
to guarantee the salvation of the Christian. Yet it is
these doctrines that Islam most vehemently opposes.
20 Matthew 24:11.
21 1 Timothy 4:1.
22 Even Islam has had its share of self-proclaimed new
prophets. Most notably, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad announced his
prophethood towards the end of the 19th Century. He also
claimed to be the second coming of Jesus. Millions of
people have followed him. However, the vast majority of
Muslims consider these "Ahmadiyyas" to be a heretical
sect. The Ahmadiyyas, though they profess to be Muslims,
aren't even allowed to take the pilgrimage to Mecca. The
Ahmadiyya movement is significant in that Ahmadiyyas say
that true Islam was corrupted, just as Muslims claim that
Christianity was corrupted. Hence, Ahmadiyyas claim that
God sent another prophet to restore the true message of
God. Muslims reject this, because they don't believe that
Islam has been corrupted.
They conclude that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad must have been a
false prophet. But this is the same reason Christians
reject Muhammad. We don't believe that Christianity has
been corrupted, so Muhammad must have been a false
prophet.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm
Love Thine Enemy
Interdenominational Violence in Christian Communities
RYAN THORNTON is a Senior Editor at the Harvard
International Review.
-From Pope John Paul II to US President George Bush, from
liberal political theorists to conservative journalists,
many have warned of a world divided along religious lines
in a "clash of civilizations."
Following the argument of political scientist Samuel
Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order, they have adopted the view of a
West defined by its Christian tradition and heritage,
established and conducting itself as a single, coherent
Christian entity. Moreover, many have begun to speak of a
war pitting 21st century Christendom against a league of
Muslim states as inevitable.
Yet such a worldview is an exceedingly narrow one,
failing to acknowledge that Christianity is no more a
united religion than the West is a united continent.
Rather, 500 years of interdenominational discord and
disunity have bred religious hatred among Christians as
potent as that toward Muslims. One need only look at the
violence that has ravaged Northern Ireland and the former
republics of Yugoslavia in the last century to see that
religious hate among Christians has not subsided in many
corners of the world.
Tough Talk
On the whole, the fierce rhetoric describing a world war
between Christians and Muslims began in response to the
terrorist attacks of September 11 as US citizens sought
to express their anger while others attempted to divine
the future in a world turned upside-down. Ann Coulter
penned one of the most noted responses in her syndicated
column, asserting, "We should invade their countries,
kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
While Coulter may be an example of the far right's
response, even those who have tried to walk a middle
ground, such as Bush, have made similar statements. In
remarks to the press on September 16, 2001, Bush referred
to the war on terrorism as a "crusade," a single word
which, although overanalyzed in the media, nonetheless
conveys at least the unconscious pervasiveness of
religious war imagery.
Perhaps surprisingly, in the months following the
attacks, there was only a slight increase in crimes
against Muslims; in fact, according to the US Federal
Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Statistics for 2001,
anti-Jewish bias was the cause of more than twice as many
crimes as anti-Islamic bias. Nonetheless, some media
outlets portrayed even slight insensitivities toward
Muslims as gross injustices. Yet in this era of what one
British journalist called "rampant Islamophobia," for
every printed word that criticized the response of Muslim
clerics and states, there were two articles decrying it
as bigotry the next day.
The generally restrained reaction of the mainstream
public, however, was overshadowed by inflammatory
statements from isolated extremists, further provoking
fear of a civilizational war. In September 2002, the
Reverend Jerry Falwell called the Prophet Mohammed "a
terrorist" on the US television show 60 Minutes,
provoking severe rioting in India that killed five people
and injured dozens. Additionally, the Reverend Franklin
Graham, son of Reverend Billy Graham, called Islam "a
wicked and evil religion," while fellow conservative
Reverend Pat Robertson denounced Muslims as "worse than
the Nazis."
In turn, Muslim extremists have fanned the flames of
civilizational conflict by propagating acts of violence
and fanaticism throughout the world. Slightly over a year
after the September 11 attacks, Muslim extremists with
ties to Al Qaeda placed a bomb in a nightclub in Bali,
Indonesia, killing nearly 200 people. Even the Miss World
beauty pageant in Nigeria last year sparked deadly
attacks by Muslims against Christians. Consequently, this
duel between inflammatory Christian rhetoric and violent
Muslim extremism has produced the perception of an
imminent clash of civilizations throughout much of the
world.
As a result, the media has increasingly portrayed world
events under a dualistic framework of Christians versus
Muslims. In a November 2002 New York Times editorial,
Thomas Friedman wrote in a satirical letter to the
"Leaders of the Muslim world" from Bush, "Unless you have
a war within your civilization, there is going to be a
war between our civilizations." Similar references to a
future clash between Muslims and Christians have entered
the language of world figures, including Pope John Paul
II, who in a recent speech instructed Christians "to be
people of dialogue [with Muslims] in order to resist that
clash of civilizations that at times seems inevitable."
With both the media and world leaders referring to a
future clash of civilizations, a religious war between
Christians and Muslims can indeed appear unpreventable.
Christian Concord?
However, this view of an imminent battle between
Christians and Muslims presupposes that Christianity is a
united movement; in fact, nothing could be further from
the truth. Christianity as a whole has not been united in
over a millennium. Moreover, the divisions between
Protestantism and Catholicism and between Orthodox
Christianity and Catholicism have produced an
interdenominational hatred to rival that of any Christian
hatred of Muslims. In cases where Muslims mingle with
Christian denominations, such as in the former
Yugoslavia, the intra-faith conflict remains as great as
in those areas where only Christian groups live and
fight.
One need only look to Ireland to see that religious
hatred between Christian denominations remains both
passionate and extreme. Although religious antagonism
existed well before the 20th century, the Easter
Rebellion of 1916 marked a turning point as the Irish
Republican Army (IRA) took a prominent role in
spearheading the cause for a unified and independent
Ireland. When Ireland's northern six counties refused to
join the Irish Free State in 1920 and instead remained
loyal to Great Britain, politics and religion became
visibly and permanently inseparable. These counties were
politically motivated against unification by Protestant
majorities who felt attached to Anglican Great Britain.
Because these political divisions over the cause of
unification were drawn along religious lines, the
resulting tensions fueled the centuries-old antagonism
that had existed between Protestants and Catholics. As a
result, groups such as the IRA were two-faced: they were
political entities with political goals, but also a
source of religious violence.
During the past 80 years, however, the violence between
Catholics and Protestants, as well as between large
groups such as the IRA and the Orange Order, has been
fierce and unending. In the late 1960s, as the Catholic
minority in Northern Ireland began to demand civil
rights, the IRA became heavily involved and conducted
numerous attacks to further its dual political and
religious agenda. In response to this increased presence,
Protestant paramilitary groups such as the Orangemen
emerged to counter the Catholic IRA and regularly incited
riots in the Catholic towns of Northern Ireland. The
mutual antagonism between Protestant groups and the IRA
led to a perennial cycle of violence. Heated Protestant
attacks and riots followed by numerous bombings by the
IRA, which only spawned more Protestant aggression.
In an attempt to break the cycle of violence and develop
a lasting peace, Great Britain, along with both
Protestant Unionist political groups and Catholic
Nationalist parties - including Sinn Féin, the political
division of the IRA - worked out a series of agreements in
1998 known as the Good Friday Accord. While creating an
autonomous government for Northern Ireland that could
unite with the Republic of Ireland by a majority vote of
both peoples, this agreement was reached under the
condition that the IRA would relinquish all claims to an
outright unified Ireland and proceed to disarm. Yet, in a
little over 10 weeks, a splinter group of the IRA, known
as the Real IRA, bombed the town of Omagh, killing 29
people and injuring over 200. In addition, the following
summers saw successively more violent riots by Protestant
groups that felt betrayed by unionist parties into a
compromise for peace with the Catholics they view as
"terrorists."
Furthermore, despite efforts by the British and Irish
governments to create an autonomous Northern Ireland,
religious tensions have greatly hampered the peace
process. Recently, the autonomous government of Northern
Ireland was suspended by the British government based on
both reports that the IRA was failing to disarm and the
arrest of Sinn Féin members for spying for the IRA in
Belfast. Moreover, the reactions of both hardline
Protestant unionists and hardline Catholic nationalists
to this suspension of the government, each blaming the
other, only furthers the view that while peace has had
its hour, hate still rules the day.
As the recent suspension of the Northern Ireland
government shows, the distrust and tension between
political groups also distinguished by religion are not
easily overcome. Because antagonism and hatred between
fellow Christians can be so virulent and divisive, no
universal concord exists among Christian denominations
that would allow them to unite into one, indivisible
entity. In fact, the divisions are so pronounced that the
potential for internal feuds prevents them from engaging
in an epic clash of civilizations against Islam or any
other religion. As the violence and hostility in Ireland
have shown, the rift can become so great that, for all
intents and purposes, different sides view others not as
sects of Christianity, but as different religions
entirely. For this reason, the view of Christianity as a
single, coherent, and undivided entity is erroneous, and
so is the portrayal of an inevitable war between a
unified Christendom and Islam.
While Ireland may have interdenominational conflict in a
country where there are only Christians, even in areas
populated by both Muslims and Christians, rates of
violence among Christians equal, if not exceed, those
between Muslims and Christians. Such is the case in the
former Yugoslavia. As a result of a long history of
foreign oppression by rulers from the Ottoman Empire to
the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia was a land divided along
religious and nationalistic lines into Catholic Croatia,
Orthodox Serbia, and Muslim Bosnia. As each foreign ruler
favored the group with which it shared cultural ties, the
respective nationalisms unleashed by the breakup of
Yugoslavia emphasized animosity that reduced to religious
hatred and violence between all three.
Over the past century, hundreds of attacks between
Orthodox Serbians and Catholic Croats have occurred in a
land that is also in direct confrontation with Muslims.
While the violence between Christians and Muslims is
significant, the fact that violence between Christian
denominations persists even in the presence of Muslims
dispels the notion of an inevitable clash of
civilizations and war between a monolithic Islam and a
united Christianity.
-From the "Bloody Liturgy" in 1937, when riots by
Orthodox Serbs protesting the Holy See's Concordat with
the Kingdom of Yugoslavia killed hundreds, to the
religious wars in the early 1990s that claimed thousands
of lives, history features prominent examples of
hostility between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs.
Although violence against Muslim Bosnians has been
intense throughout the centuries and especially in more
recent years, hatred and violence between Croats and
Serbs have not diminished. In 1994, the Croats even
allied themselves with Muslims against the Serbs. As
continued violence in the past decade has shown, while
religious hate runs deep among Orthodox Serbs, Catholic
Croats, and Bosnian Muslims, the fact that the Orthodox
and Catholics have been unable to reconcile even in the
presence of a third, non-Christian religious group
undermines the prospect of war between two clearly
defined religious worlds.
While politicians, political theorists, and the media may
speculate about the inevitable clash of civilizations,
the history of Ireland illustrates that religious hatred
among fellow Christians shows no sign of waning.
Furthermore, as the former Yugoslavia shows, even in the
presence of Muslims, Christians are so preoccupied with
centuries-old religious differences that the possibility
of their unification against another faith, even a
religion as theologically different as Islam, is
unrealistic. Thus, any crusade of the 21st century will
go the way of the medieval Crusades, during which not
even Christian hatred of Muslims could dampen Christian
hatred of fellow Christians.
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1118/
End of forwarded message from "Srinivasan Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97@gmail.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS |
08 Sep 2005 05:13:56 PM |
|
|
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in news:XoAJe1499eyUBe@QdiAx:
CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS
It really is amazing and terribly sad that so many people take these
religious fables (all of them, xian, muslim, hindu,...) seriously enough to
hate and kill in the name of their gods.
(snip remainder of *****)
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseki" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS |
08 Sep 2005 04:11:59 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj said:
For nearly two thousand years, Christians have proclaimed
Jesus' death and resurrection. Islam rejects both of
these doctrines
I will admit, I gave up on your rant right here. Islam doubts that
Jesus is dead? Jeepers, if he is still kicking around I have some great
questions foir him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CHRISTISTS HATE CHRISTISTS AND ALSO ISLAMISTS |
08 Sep 2005 03:03:13 PM |
|
|
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html
* Why I Am Not a Hindu
Professor Ramendra's bold manifesto in which he explains why he
rejects the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma, moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. In place of idol
worship and ancient taboo, Ramendra advocates a humanistic
secularism based on liberty, equality, and the inalienable rights
of each individual.
"I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me
to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born
in a Hindu family."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
