Comments on: Chastity and Terrorism

By: Kevin Graham

Kevin Graham — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:53:55 +0000

One says Christianity in the “modern” sense is more peaceful than Islam, and another refrers to medieval Christianity. You all are getting it wrong. There simply is no equivalent to Islamic terror in Christianity, and there never was.

Terrorism is sanctioned by Islamic holy writ, whereas the events in “Christian history” you refer to is a result of Christendom, not Christianity. Christianity is the religion, and the Pope didn’t sanction terrorism – Roman emperors (Christendom) generally did, however. They used Christianity as a symbol since it was declared the state religion in the 4th century. Before that we saw Christianity bloom as a peaceful movement without one person raising a sword. When Muslims kill apostates it is because it is Islamic law. Before you say that’s just extremism, it is an established fact that this doctrine is accepted by all four school of Sunni jurisprudence.

The moral relativism that’s going on here is sickening. All religions are not equal. I know that’s what we’ve been conditioned to believe, but terrorism isn’t as easily inspired by Amish teachings as it is in Islamic teachings. Once we accept this politically incorrect truth, maybe we’ll make progress in solving some real problems.

The vast majority of terrorism in the world today comes at the hands of Muslims. The reason is not poverty. The reason is not lack of education. The reason is not strictly political. These are excuses by the moral relativists who don’t want to consider the painful alternative. Violence and waging war against non-believers is a 14 century tradition that is not just some fluke fad that coincidentally struck Muslims around the world with vigor. It is grounded in Islamic principles – and no, Islam is not reduced to the five pillars.

Another myth is that the Christian Church was less tolerant of Jews than Islam. This is a half truth. In practice it is true, though in principle it wasn’t. Intolerance towards Jews in Islam came at the divine sanction of Islamic sharia. Intolerance towards Jews in Christendom came without the sanction of the Church. It was easier for Christians to disobey Christian teachings because the Church did not have a stranglehold on every Christian’s daily habits, as Islam does for the Muslim.

Teh Popes ordered that Jews were to be tolerated in ways that are not allowed in Islam. For example, that a Christian could not testify against a Jew because of obvious bias. In Islam, Jews and Christians could not testify against Muslims. Also, Jews were not allowed to express their religion in public under Islamic rule, but the Popes ordered that the Jews be left alone during their religious festivals.

It is a fallacious to equate Christendom’s actions as political empire, with thos of the religion of Islam. But this is just one of many techniques used by modern academians, to promote the burnt out doctrine of multicultural relativism.

By: BillM

BillM — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:16:01 +0000

This theory seems to lack a fundamental correlation. Is there any evidence that women are lonely in the singles wards of Islam? When deriving the relathionship Lewis doesn’t determine any type of causal relationship. He is stating that one thing is happening, and here is possible cause. Hardly a concrete analsysis.

So a guy can’t find a wife, gets sexually frustrated, then becomes a terrorist. His theory makes lots of sense.

By: Seth Rogers

Seth Rogers — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:11:35 +0000

I also don’t see what George Bush has to do with this topic either.

By: B

Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:05:40 +0000

A counterintuitive reason religion gets dragged into so much violence worldwide may be because a straightforward, base-level reading of most religions leads one directly toward “thou shalt not kill” type teachings. When a leader is trying to stir up violence, the faithful audience is thinking “but wait a minute, we’re not supposed to kill; we don’t believe in killing.” The leader then has to address those religious objections and must do so in religious terms, otherwise the people will say “god said not to kill; you’re just a man; we should listen to god, not to you.” And so the leader has to find some way to make it seem like the religion allows for killing or even requires it. It might not be hard to find enough war stories in most religions’ holy books to make an arguable case. But I still think it’s significant that Middle Eastern clerics feel like they have to build a case to try to convince Muslims that it’s a good idea to be violent. At the very least that means suicide killings are not self-evidently “good things” in the eyes of most Muslims.

By: GeorgeD

GeorgeD — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:52:13 +0000

The middle ages get a bad rap. Everyone holds up the mirror of modernity to them and finds them wanting in religious faith and practice. I find that the Cristians of the middle ages were entirely fallible (horrifically so) but they had some core values that they would gives their lives to defend. The crusades may have benn catastropically executed but the cause was just. The Inquisition is now caricatured but it may have preserved Christianity in spite of all its excesses.

I find much to admire from the middle ages. St. Frances of Assissi, Bernard of Clarvaux (sp?) etc. etc.Thank goodness that the Apostacy only went so far. Thank goodness for the faithful of that era who didn’t suffer it (by force of arms if necessary) to go farther.

Thank goodness for the George Bush’s of this world who carry on the fight for western civilization, if not for Christianity itself.

By: Seth Rogers

Seth Rogers — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:06:25 +0000

b bell, who exactly gave that speech? The intro said it was a Saudi government official. I didn’t see any mention of religious credentials.

In any case, I don’t see that it makes much difference. Islam is not a centralized religion. There is no central leadership that speaks for everyone and every cleric has his own following. Just because the head of some madrasa somewhere says something loony doesn’t automatically transfer his opinions to the entire Muslim community or even most of the Muslim community.

Actually, I’ve always held that this is the critical flaw with modern Islam: Muhammad is dead. Nobody speaks for the entire religion anymore. Therefore the message depends on who you’re talking to.

Anyway, I don’t see what moral relativism has to do with this one way or the other.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:33:47 +0000

I looked at the memri webpage, and then did a google search about the website.

There is some debate whether the memri website is an objective source with respect to the Islamic or Arabic worlds.

An article questioning its objectivity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Memri’s response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,778373,00.html

While the memri home page focuses on negative aspects of the Arabic and Islamic worlds, there is a page on memri that quotes from Islamic and Arabic reformers: http://www.memri.org/reform.html One can also get to this page from the home page in two or three clicks.

By: Space Chick

Space Chick — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:20:58 +0000

I think it would be more accurate to say that modern Islamic leaders encourage terrorism and use their religious authority to do so, rather than that Islam itself encourages terrorism. “How” they encourage it may very well include promises of carnal delights in a garden with fountains. As to “why” they encourage it, many of the reasons given above probably play a role. Orson Scott Card apparently drew on some sociological theories regarding violence and overpopulation, implying in one short story he wrote that an excess of young and unproductive men usually seems to lead to a warlike attitude within an entire culture, where parents end up encouraging their sons to go to battle, and that the ensuing casulaties among young men reduce that portion of the population to manageable levels. He did not imply that it was a conscious process–”let’s kill off all these young bucks in a war with our neighbors so we can have peace at home”–but rather an unconscious reaction to population pressures. I’d love to know what Card was basing this on–you guys are all fairly smart, any hints?

I’ve also heard a speaker posit that the “youth bulge” of increasing proportions of young men in their late teens/early twenties, in conjunction with lack of water, lack of arable land, lack of employment, and lack of opportunity in general, coupled with an increased education and increased awareness of how much wealth/freedom others enjoy is what primes a given region for violence and instability. He did not suggest that specific religions were a cause of that violence, only that unscrupulous religious leaders could take advantage of the unrest to advance their own aims, cloaking their personal agendas in a mantle of righteousness.

By: b bell

b bell — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:41:04 +0000

here is a recent sermon in S Arabia. Compare this to the writings of the Pope

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD99005

By: b bell

b bell — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:33:32 +0000

I disagree with Seth.

Islam and terrorism and violently linked. Read the sermons at http://www.memri.org Then blog about what you have read.

Its pretty clear that there is mainstream support for terrorism amongst the elite Islamic clerics in the Middle East.

Modern relativism is a death sentence for the West in its conflict with Islam. Even the UK is waking up now.