The blogosphere and right wing media are full of dire warnings of the inherent bloodlust of Islam. “Islam is the enemy!” these sites scream; not a misguided minority within the religion but the religion itself (check out renewamerica.com and associated links as an example). When President Obama suggests that extreme Jihadists pervert Islam such opponents label him a dupe of stealth jihad or a traitor.
These voices will often cite the origins of Mohammed as a ‘war lord’, the violent expansion of Islam from his death to 750 CE, religious wars through the ages and the atrocities occurring now in the name of Islam by the fanatical few. All these voices eventually will quote specific verses from the Koran, the holy book of Islam, which justify violence against “the infidel” or non-Muslims. Such pundits would suggest that today’s 1.2 billion Muslims in the world are out to convert or kill you because of what is written in their holy book.
If the Muslim agenda as predicated by their scripture were to convert all non-believers or kill them, why in nations where they are a majority (currently 47) haven't they done so or aren't doing so now?
We should never dismiss the serious civil and religious oppression experienced in some of these same nations; neither should we dismiss violence committed against non-Muslim minorities during significant historic periods or that is occurring today (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Iran). Communal violence continues to break out between religions also fueled by other factors than religion such as ethnic, economic and political conflict (India, Bosnia, Kosovo, Nigeria).
Yet non-Muslim visitors to Saudi Arabia or Yemen are not required to convert or die. Although far from perfect, practical levels of coexistence with non-Muslims are found in such Muslim majority nations as Indonesia, Sierra Leon, Jordan and Turkey. To suggest that all Muslims intend to impose their religion, if necessary by force, denies observation and ignores the diversity of theological opinion and interpretation of the Koran. Islam is as diverse in practice and expression as the Protestant community in Christianity.
To assert a monolithic obedience to the shared writings of the Koran, in particular those texts which call for violence against non-Muslims, suggests that the adherents of a religion believe in and practice each and every word found in their sacred texts.
Christians certainly don't. We interpret, contextualize or ignore such texts as:
Happy are those who dash their babies against the rock! (Psalm 137:9)
Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ’Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate through the camp, and each of your kill your brother, your friend and your neighbor’…and so you have brought a blessing on yourselves this day…(Exodus 32:27,29)
Prepare war…beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears… (Joel 3:9-10)
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
….when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. (Deuteronomy 7:2)
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence… (Luke 19:27)
It is not uncommon for followers of any religion with a sacred book to self-select verses of their sacred texts, often lifted out of context such as the above, to justify one’s point of view. The Koran specifically forbids murder, violence against women and children, violence against innocents, suicide, the mutilation of the bodies of enemies in war and the killing of fellow Muslims. Jihadist extremists will site a variety of verses in the Koran justifying violence against “the infidel” and ignore other verses in direct contradiction.
Within recent history Muslim to Muslim violence far exceeds that perpetuated upon non-Muslim. In his Pulitzer prize winning book The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Vintage 2006) Lawrence Wright describes the doctrine of "takfir" or “excommunication” developed by post World War II extremists in Egypt which categorizes behavior, ideology or dogma that negates one's status as a Muslim. This doctrine justifies the true believer's taking of “excommunicated” life, including the collateral lives of associated innocents, which is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Koran. Wright suggests that such violent self-justification has raised the concerns of even the most conservative of Muslims and is held by only a tiny segment of the Islamic world.
Sacred texts can be twisted and turned to fit any agenda and have been throughout history in all religions with a sacred book. It is not easy to hold in tension sacred writings in direct conflict with each other but that is what the faithful are often called to do.
How do faithful Jews makes sense of Psalm 145 when verse 8 reads, “The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he had made” while verse 20 of the same Psalm reads “….but all the wicked he will destroy.”?
How does the Christian reconcile the crucifixion scene in the gospel of Matthew when the two bandits crucified at his right and left scorn and taunt Jesus along with the crowd (27:44) while at the same scene in the gospel of Luke one of the bandits mocks Jesus while the other confesses faith in him as the Son of God (Luke 23:42)?
Such sacred text quandaries are dealt with by study and interpretation, a very subjective process! Approaching the text with assumptions seeking a justification it is guaranteed that an interpreter will find verses to fit their purpose. It is evident that extremist Muslims have done this as a basis for the contemporary Jihadist movement.
Those who argue that Islam is an intentionally violent religion by citing only those verses of the Koran justifying that point of view are practicing this same self-selection.
Recent military gains in Iraq and Afghanistan have been based in part on US and NATO troops providing security for the civilian populations of villages and cities from the intimidation of militant groups. If “Islam is the enemy”…if all Muslims understand that they are charged by their Koran to convert or kill non-Muslims…why do we need to protect civilian Muslim populations from extremist Jihadists? Unless of course ordinary folk, even in Iraq or Afghanistan, do not in fact share the same agenda, ideology or theology.
1.2 billion Muslims are not out to kill you. Some of them are and they must be stopped of course. Thank God we have men and women who are willing to do that.
But to suggest that there is a global conspiracy by all Muslims to conquer the world by conversion or death by citing a selection of verses from the Koran only justifies an irrational fear. A fear that fuels prejudice, suspicion and could lead to the oppression of law abiding Muslim citizens who have long rejected such a twisting of their faith.
Defining this conflict as a religious war is exactly what the Jihadist extremists want.
If we as a nation where to conclude that in fact “Islam is the enemy” we only have to look back to 1942 and what we did with Japanese American citizens to imagine what we would begin to do with Muslim Americans. And if we allow our paranoia to dictate our actions,” al-Qaeda won’t have to do a thing to destroy America. We will have done it to ourselves.” (Wright)