Figure 1.--. |
|
The Koran contains passages that encourage toleration and moderation. It also includes passages that are intolerant and immoderate. Moderate Muslim that sea there religion as one of peace and tollerance can certainly find such passages in the Koran. Passages which in the 7th century were very advanced and justified a more tolerant approach than medieval Christianity often took toward non-Christians. The problem with Islam, however, is that there are not only intolerant passages, but actually vicious passages in the Koran. And as Islam congtinues to see each word in the Koran as the literal word of God as dictated to the Prophet Mohamed, there is no way of delegaing these passages to a lesser level of doctrine. The Bivle is also seen as the word of God, but most Christians today see the Bible as reflecting ethical principles over time. Thus the draconian aspects of the Old Testament are generlly given less emphasis than the more tolernt and peaceful passages of the New Testament which of course reflect Christ's teachings. One major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the Biblical cannon consists of Old Testament books and New Testament books written at a time when Christianity was a small sect unecognized by the Roman Government. Much of the Koran, incliding many of the intolerant passages were written after Muhammed and his followers had begun their conquests.
The Koran contains passages that encourage toleration and moderation. It also includes passages that are intolerant and immoderate. Moderate Muslim that sea there religion as one of peace and tollerance can certainly find such passages in the Koran. Passages which in the 7th century were very advanced and justified a more tolerant approach than medieval Christianity often took toward non-Christians. Some passages, generally the earlier passages, are both pacifistic and tolerant.
Fr example, one passage reads, "There is no compulsion in religion." [2:256] Passages classify Jews and Christians the closest to Muslims. Early verses recommend preaching to convert infidels. For many Muslims these tolerant passages is proof that Islam is tolerant, despite the many intolerant passages in the Koran are the dreadful acts of intolerance commited by Muslim fundamentalists.
There are extremly intollerant passages. One passage reads, "If anyone seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him." [3:85] Later passages command that Muslims not take unbelievers to be their friends. And there are passages which call for the slaughter of all non-believers until the earth is conquered for Islam. Muslim spokesmen attempt to emphasize the Kornic passages promoting toleration. One Muslim in Britain community leader following the aborted airplane attacks insists, "The reason young people are attracted to extremists is because they are ignorant of what the Qur'an really says." The problem with Islam, however, is that there are not only intolerant passages, but actually vicious passages in the Koran. And Islamic fundamentalists actually often do know the Koran very well. One observer points out, "The Qur'an really does say Muslims are to fight jihad until unbelief is destroyed, it really does say they should not make friends with unbelievers, it really does describe the Jews as the sons of apes and pigs. And to this day, mainstream Islam has not developed a form of exegesis that allows verses like these to be rejected as unsuited to the modern world. These are precisely the verses, backed up by Prophetic Traditions, which radicals use to lure young Muslims into terrorism. Until moderate Muslims can find a way past this problem, the radicals will continue to be able to use the divine word as justification for their hatred of the Western way of life." [MacEoin] Individuals interested in this subject should read the Koran themselves to learn what is actually set down there. We have begun this process. We have in particular looked for passages about Jews. What we found was numerous passages that are not only disturbing, but offensive to modern people who believe in religious toleration. The Islamic contempt and hatred toward Jews clearly has been an aspect of Muslim life from the very onset. And gives lie to the all too commonly expressed view that violence in the Middle East is the result of the creation of Israel.
References to Christians are only mildly less offensive. One assessment reports that the Koran contains 5 commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally in Arabic "try to kill"). These and other passages need to be assessed. Far to many in the West want to just the vilonent passages which are also intolerant because the targets of the violence are commonly those of other faiths.
And as Islam congtinues to see each word in the Koran as the literal word of God as dictated to the Prophet Mohamed, there is no way of delegaing these passages to a lesser level of doctrine.
And in debates between moderates and extremiss, the Islamic tradition actually favors the extremist. Manu of the Koranic passages counseling toleration and peace were passages revealed to the Prophet when he was living at Mecca. This was before he began to wage jihad. Islamic scholars in a long established tradition have adopted the tradition that when considering conflicting passages that early verses can be superceeded by later ones. Muhammed while at Mecca lived peacefully with his neighbors and tried to convet them through preaching. The Koranic verses from this period are the most olerant and peaceful. After he was drven from Mecca, the Koran begins to become more intolerant and war-like. It was at this time he began waging jihad and his followes began attacking Jewish and Arab villages. Soom Muslim armies had begun their campaigns of conquest. Thus by Islamic tradition the early passages of peace and toleration carry less authority than the passages teaching intolerance and conversion through jihad.
The Bible is also seen as the word of God, but most Christians today see the Bible as reflecting ethical principles over time. There are Christian fundamentalists who see the Bible as the literal word of God, but even among the most fanatical fundamentaslists there is no belief that they have the right to kill non-believers or Christians who dsagree with them. Most Christians have adopted various ways of intrpreting the Bible so they do not have to accept every word as literaly. Thus the draconian aspects of the Old Teastament are generlly given less emphasis than the more tolernt and peaceful passages of the New Testament which of course reflect Christ's teachings.
One major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the Biblical cannon consists of Old Testament books and New Testament books written at a time when Christianity was a small sect unecognized by the Roman Government. Much of the Koran, incliding many of the intolerant passages were written after Muhammed and his followers had begun their conquests. Thus Mohammed and his followers from an early stage of using force and compulsion. The Christian appostles who wrote the New Testament had no way of using civil authority to impose their views.
An onserver explains the difficulty that moderates have in discussing this issue, "The trouble is that nobody debates this publicly. No Muslim can challenge a single word of the Qur'an. To do so would be the ultimate blasphemy. It is the absolute word of God and unchangeable. Every attempt that has been made during the last century, not to challenge but just re-interpret the divine text has been met by imprisonment and the threat of execution. The moderates simply dare not say that the verses condemning unbelievers or calling for a jihad against them are invalid. The radicals approach young Muslims who want to know what the Qur'an says, and there it is in black and white 'O Prophet! Urge the believers to slaughter...' (8:65) or 'Slay the polytheists wherever you find them!' (9:5) and so on through about 164 verses, every one of which is of later date than the ones preaching tolerance." [MacEoi]
Another problem is that some Western Governments and important officials have sought to limit free sppech on this sunbejt. Many in the West have come to view criticismm of Islam as hate speech while not applying similar standards to criticisms of other religions. The same principles used to limit right-wing hate speech are being used to criticize criticisms of Islam.
The Dutch government ininiated legal proceedings against a sitting member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders. This is an almost unprecdented step. He has been saccused of "hate speech." The primary issue appeas to be a short film he produved--"Fitna". Wilders juxtaposed bloody actual, but bloody passages from the Koran with scenes of Islamist violence.
A three-judge panel in Amsterdam ruled that the film—and some of Wilders' more intemperate public statements, like his comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf were enough to justify criminal prosecution for making “one-sided generalizations” about Islam and thus “insulting Muslim worshippers”. The British have taken steps to prohibit the showing of the film. We know of no steps taken by either goivernment against those criticising Christianity or Judaism. The outspoken former Mayor of London, and Ken Livingstone has spoken against the film before he saw it, describing it as propaganda of the vilest sort. Livingston agreed with Ahmed and the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Wilders film should be banned. Livingston's standards seem different when it is Muslims practicing hate speech. When he was still Mayor, he invited the Muslim preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi to speek in London. When it came out that al-Qaradawi defended suicide bombing, female genital mutilation, the killing of Israeli civilians, and the stoning of homosexuals, Livingstone response was these were "lies and Islamophobia" and further that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was spreading misinformation against al-Qaradawi. The British police have even investigated independent Cannel 4 journalists reporting on extremism in the British Muslim community. [Moynihan] TheBBC is much less likely to address the subject.
Bostom, Andrew. The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism.
MacEoin, Denis. Letter to John Reid, Home Secretary, August 14, 2006.
Moynihan, Michael C. "Censorship and Double Standards: The United Kingdom's selective intolerance of free speech," Reasonline (February 18, 2009). This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.
Qadir, Imtiaz. 'We tried to keep out extremists, say leaders' (August 14, 2006).
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main Islanic toleration page]
[Return to the Main Islam page]
[Return to the Middle Eastern chronologies]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Art chronologies]
[Biographies]
[Chronologies]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]