Greg Carey, Professor of New Testament, Lancaster Theological Seminary, responds in Huffington Post.
Reza Aslan’s Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth has taken off as a cultural phenomenon. Just two weeks after Aslan’s interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” his interpretation of Jesus’ life and intentions has attained number one status on bestseller lists. A ridiculously hostile FOXNews interview has certainly helped. But it’s been two weeks — and as yet I cannot find a serious review by a practicing biblical scholar. This brief review amounts to my attempt to respond to the questions I’m receiving about the book from every corner.
Aslan gained wide popularity for his introduction to Islam, No god but God. I very much enjoyed my copy and still consult it. Aslan holds a PhD in sociology, but his primary scholarly emphasis involves contemporary religion. Aslan has also worked in New Testament studies, and Zealot contains references to a vast amount of literature, yet the book also betrays that he is not immersed in the literature of that field. Aslan is a spectacular writer, and his portrait of Jesus is spiritually if not intellectually compelling.
Allow me to address the common complaint that as a Muslim Aslan has no business writing a Jesus book. Aslan clearly respects and admires Jesus. That some Christians might find his claims unsettling is, well, tough, because Aslan is doing serious intellectual work. The complaints have no place in responsible public discourse.
First, Zealot has formidable strengths. Aslan has done a great deal of homework, offering material that will instruct many specialists from time to time. The most important thing Aslan accomplishes involves setting Jesus in a plausible historical and cultural context. Indeed, more of the book may involve Jesus’ contexts than direct discussion of the man himself. Someone very like Jesus could easily have existed in Roman Galilee. Aslan’s Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, passionately committed to Israel’s welfare and restoration. Aslan appreciates how Jesus’ activities amounted to resistance against Roman domination — as well as against collaboration on the part of Jewish elites. Many scholars would agree.
Any respectable portrait of Jesus must take serious account of how Jesus died, as Aslan’s does. Jesus dies as a convicted seditionist, a would-be king who finally got caught. This is a serious interpretation of Jesus’ crucifixion. Perhaps Aslan most deserves credit for his openness to the possibility that Jesus really did see himself as Israel’s messiah, or king. Far too many historians dismiss this possibility out of hand.
Many traditionalist Christians will struggle with Aslan’s handling of the Gospel stories. Maybe they don’t teach this in some churches, but Christian thought developed a great deal in the decades following Jesus’ death, a fact Aslan recognizes. I do wish he were more careful in spelling out why he finds certain Gospel traditions more historically plausible than others, but again any credible account of Jesus’ life must recognize that the Gospels do not provide direct windows into Jesus’ activities.
I would add that Aslan provides some of the most helpful discussions I have yet encountered regarding the accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry and of his resurrection. These stories represent minefields for any historical investigator. Aslan handles them with sympathy, imagination, and critical judgment.
At the same time, I have some serious reservations about Aslan’s portrait of Jesus, and I suspect that most professional biblical scholars will share some of them. First, the book contains some outright glitches, things a professional scholar would be unlikely to say. Aslan suggests there were “countless” revolutionary prophets and would-be messiahs in Jesus’ day. Several did appear, but “countless” is a bit much. Aslan assumes near-universal illiteracy in Jesus’ society, an issue that remains unsettled and hotly contested among specialists. At one point Aslan says it would seem “unthinkable” for an adult Jewish man not to marry. He does mention celibate Jews like the Essenes, but he seems unaware that women were simply scarce in the ancient world. Lots of low-status men lacked the opportunity to marry. Aslan assumes Jesus lived and worked in Sepphoris, a significant city near Nazareth. This is possible, but we lack evidence to confirm it. Click link for full article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/reza-aslan-on-jesus_b_3679466.html
Posted By F. Sheikh
Can you imagine the reaction in the Muslim world if a Christian had brought the Prophet’s status down from an exalted prophet to anything less? This guy Aslan essentially brings Jesus down from a God-like status to a zealous revolutionary(a criminal in the minds of Romans) and there have been no bombings,boycotts and death threats. Even the disagreemants that this priest has with Aslan are so politely stated. I hope the idiots in our religion are taking note. Did anybody notice Aslan’s scholarly view on Jesus’ crucifixion? He says Jesus was definitely crucified; the Quran has a different interpretation.
This comment by Dr. Shoeb Amin is uniquely rare. It reflects objectivity and self criticism which is extremely rare in Muslim intellectual circles.
I would not hesitate to borrow a sentence Wequar Azeem’s comment.
“Well said Sir! Bravo!”
The last sentence of Dr Shoeb’s comment requires our serious contemplation.
“He (Aslan) says Jesus was definitely crucified; the Quran has a different interpretation”.
Some people think that Quran is a book of revelation!
Quran is not a book of history.
Quran is not a book of Philosophy.
Quran is not a book of science.
Whereas majority of the Muslim believe that every word of Quran is literally true and Quran is a book of Philosophy, Science as well as History.
It is just an intellectual exchange and enlightening awareness.
What about Naskh and Mansookh?
Anybody would like to comment.
Noor Salik
I couldn’t agree more with every sentence of Shoeb Amin Saheb’s observation. Well said Sir ! Bravo !
Quran is not a book of History or Philosophy or Science. It deals with the origin of Monotheist God, Genesis of Universe and Mankind, and the concept of Hereafter and all that lies in between. The Quranic text is predominantly based on the foundations laid in the New Testament and the Pentateuch. It is not a book of History because it does conform to the definition of Historiography. It is also not a book of Science because both Darwin’s Theory of Evolution defining creation of living beings, starting from single cell germination due to coming together of right elements, and an on going process leading to auto-creation of higher forms of living organisms, over a long journey of hundreds of millions of years, culminating in the vast panorama of present day living beings, including the mankind, are belied by Quran. Since it is stated to have been revealed piecemeal over 23 lunar years, it also relates and refers to the events that took place during those 23 years with conveniently timed revelations needed to best handle those events. The Mansookh Ayat of Satanic verses and those that are Nasikh are an illustration of how “Revealed” Ayat served as a support and authorization for the Prophet over contentious issues. Similarly, Quran is also not a book of any single, well defined, philosophy. At best it can be termed a conundrum of several pseudo philosophic thoughts reverentially called philosophy. The above are the common sense views of an ordinary reader who is not indoctrinated to deal with Quran’s text reverentially and pretends that every word in it stores a wealth of information and wisdom.
Please read …does NOT conform to…historiography…
Quran’s narrative about crucification.
First Background and then Quran’s Sura 4, Verse 157; Explained by Mr.Ezz Hamza and my best recollection and paraphrasing of narrative; After Jesus Christ challenged the Roman King, it was ordered to arrest him. The arresting officers did not know the identity of the Jesus Christ or his residence because he was moving from place to place. One of Christ’s confidants betrayed him and agreed to help the officers. He told the officers that he will kiss the Christ and you will know the identity of the Christ. He kissed the Christ while the officers were looking from a hiding place. But after kissing the Christ, confidant’s own body transformed into the shape of Christ. At this point the Christ was lifted up to heavens and his confidant was left behind in the shape of Christ. Later officers arrested the confidant thinking that he was the actual Christ and afterward he was crucified. In this background read the Sura 4, Verse 157
4:157 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.
My comments:
I have not read the book by Reza Aslan and before commenting further on crucification, it is better to read full accounting of it in the Book. We should keep in mind that it was a period of controversy and some of the interpretations of the accounts by Reza Aslan are being challenged by biblical scholars. Reza Aslan has said that his book is not a scholarly work, there is nothing new in the book, but a personal interpretations of work done by other scholars for average reader. Nevertheless, it has created a lot of buzz and interest among Christians, Jews and Muslims alike. Good for Reza!! More later.
Fayyaz
I view the difference pointed out by Dr. Shoeb between Muslim reaction and the Christians on the desecration of their scriptures or degrading their Prophets, is because today Muslims are burning with the complex of victimhood. Whenever any one desecrates the Prophet or the Qur’an they feel that they are again being victimized. On the other hand the Christens or the Westerns are victimizers not the victim.
There are many historical examples that the Meccans–even abu Sufian–would write derogatory poems and letters to disgrace the Prophet. There were no protests or any reactions to such events, even when Muslims were in full power in Medina. This explains how tolerant the Prophet himself was. He would often instruct his people to remain calm and just ignore such things as rubbish. Today what we see is because the Muslims are torn apart, are in shackles, are being victimized by the Western powers, and being weak and helpless have no choice to show their resentment other than to protest and beat their own chests. There is a famous Persian saying–qahr-e-dervish bar jaan-e-dervish (the wrath of a poor or weak person falls on his own self).
Mirza Ashraf
Victimhood is a disease afflicting the Muslim psyche. Rather than face truth it is more convenient to find villains. The list of boogeymen keeps growing. Western powers, Sunnis against Shia and vice versa and all other sects in between. Intolerance is endemic, an inwardly directed negative force that obliterates both reason and accommodation. Muslms need to grow up, face up to the stark realities created by religious exclusivity. Only then would the ummah be able to expunge the demons of zealotry.
Nasik
In my humble opinion Mirza Sahib, those are bad excuses for bad behavior. The complex of victimhood is self generated; it was probably true 50 years ago, not today. There is some truth to the fact that the West IS trying to control the Muslim world, as it does the whole world, but China, Russia and even tiny Venezuela does not let themselves become victims or use victimhood as their failures. The real truth is that we Muslims have come to believe that violence is an acceptable from of protest and despite our repeated claims that Islam is a religion of peace, some of that propensity to violent protests comes from certain interpretations of our religion. I am not saying Islam is a religion promoting violence; no religion is. But violence against something that is unreligious is considered acceptable. May be all religions consider it acceptable but their followers have decided – at least in the present day world – not to use those excuses for violence. We bring up the bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of Western – as in Judeo- Christian – violence but those are more done for political and material reasons, not in the name of Christ or Jesus.
I think the Christians’ peaceful response to Aslan’s book is not from a lack of victimhood; it is just from a different mindset. We need to acquire that mindset and stop blaming external factors.
If I was a Christian, in today’s world, I would be rather happy at the image Aslan is presenting of Jesus as a zealot and a revolutionary. The traditional image of Jesus
is unreal, kind of drugged person, oblivious to the world and a loser who was crucified despite the claims of being the father and the son and the holy spirit. I actually don’t see
why any Christian should take offense with this image and specially when Aslan hasn’t used any derogatory language..(I haven’t read the whole book, just some excerpts).
Christians of the old times (while writing New Testament) obviously have created the false image the way they wanted, highlighting “turn the other cheek” attitude, associating him with miraculous cures, sweeping the blood line under the carpet, denying his painful death on the cross with imaginative resurrection – makes a good fairy tale. As a Christian I would rather prefer the Christ as a revolutionary, and a martyr-not a death for the atonement (of Adam’s sin). Aslan is so right and crucifixion must have been for an offense punishable this way – no rulers will punish someone for doing all the cures (so called) and preaching to turn the other cheek. This image does fit the story and makes
Jesus a real person.
A passage that I read in his book about Jesus’s entry in the temple on a donkey where he
trashes the bazaar and cleanses the temple dedicating that to God only had me thinking how Mohammad entered the Kaaba and trashed idols, just wondering if any one else will make the connection like I did. Another thing in the same incident tells how evil/clever were the clergy who put Jesus on the spot by asking him in public if paying tribute to the Romans was the right thing, and entrapped him of a crime they knew will be punishable. So much for the Jewish clergy’s righteousness. The more you read in the context of prevailing mindset of that time or about others according to their times, a lot of things
can be understood contrary to the traditional image or explanations concocted by the
followers later on.
Reaction of Muslims about any scholarly work about Mohammad may not be as we have seen on derogatory cartoons or Satanic Verses episode. I say this because if one reads Karen Armstrong’s books she does write about Ghazu (Mohammad leading ambush on Meccan caravans) which is not very flattering. In one of her other books I read sentences referring to “convenient” revelations (such as Noor Sahib referred about Nasikh and Munsukh)…which implies less than praise in my view. Frankly Muslim masses, not educated minority, is a little dumb to take offense on a cleverly written criticism.
Finally I am wondering how Christians reconcile the crucifixion as atonement while believing Christ actually was replaced (like Isaac with a goat) with the Judas or resurrected, isn’t that a kind of cheating on the part of lord God??
Babar
It is very amusing to watch apologists tiptoeing around the issue whether Islamic teachings promote violence for propagation of Islam by force or not. Most Muslims would like to portray Islam as a religion of Peace, whereas the truth is quite opposite of it, specially ever since Wahabism flew off the charts, propelled by petrodollars, all over the world in Muslim countries and in Muslim diasporas. True, the Old Testaments also carried passages prompting the Jews to annihilate the non-Jewish people, but they chose to make it irrelevent and marginalize it over the centuries. The new books of the Old Testament don’t even include those texts. The Muslims too had done that. However , with the new found zeal to revive the Islam of Prophet and Khulfa-e-Rashedin’s time, Wahabi Muslims are focusing on the passages of Quran which support their contention. Here are some of those passages from Quran, and one can form his own opinion as to Islam today is a religion of peace or not.
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Quran (9:14) – “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This also contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)
Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,” Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. “But if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning war. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.
Do you think, it is alright to do such things just because our religion is telling us to do it?
I would like to know what “Wequar Azeem” thinks about Islam?
Is Islam a religion of Peace or not?
Not what’s happening now the Wahabism, the green topi, the white topi and so on, over all.
Regards,
Aftab Dar
Who are the Fundamentalists and what do they believe in?
What do they preach (…more like ENFORCE) ? They believe in Islam’s fundamentals, which, over the centuries got mellowed, rendered more tolerant and liberal, courtesy the Sufis and some enlightened rulers like Akbar-e-Azam. The advocates of Islam refer to the more tolerant history of benign phase of Islam that started long after the fundamental phase which prevaled during the life of the Prophet and the Khulfa-e-Raashedin. The first Caliph died of old age within 2 years, but the other 3 were assassinated in the true tradition of characteristic savagery. Eleven out of twelve Isna Ashri Imams were also murdered. The twelfth Imam disappeared as a kid just like a lot of missing persons of Balochistan today. Shia historians romanticized his disappearance with quasi-spiritual fantasy, all too common in religious literature of almost all religions. Having said that, each truth-seeker has to form his own opinion after studying the independent historic data. Most regular Muslims carry the sentiment handed down to them from generation to generation, without conducting any objective, unbiased study of undoctored books of history. Has Mr Aftab Dar formed an opinion through his own critical study of Islam, or he is simply carrying the sentiment handed down to him from his family, molvi saheb and extended family ?
The Qur’an does not say that Islam is a religion. It clearly says that Islam is a DEEN, a way of life; and for the modern man I can say it is a DIVINELY REVEALED WAY OF LIFE or an ideology which makes it a civilization of the believers in Islam.
Secondly, the killings of the Right Guided Caliphs and many more after them in the History of Islam were politically motivated. Even some scholars of Islam have been tortured, imprisoned, and killed by the rulers for their own political motives. The list of ferocious verses picked by Wequar Sahib, basically give the same message but cannot be read without their full context. I wonder why atheists expect that when the Meccans first invaded Medina, God should have instructed the Prophet, do not draw your swords to defend yourself, rather present the invaders bowls of milk and honey.
The spirit of Islam, both in its social and political context, is PEACE. War according to Qur’an is a learned behavior, which can be unlearned. I find 95% of Qur’an reveals the message for peace and wherever war is mentioned it is to defend the believers and the DEEN of Islam. Peace, according to Qur’an is natural privilege. However, it permits war, because without war, whether for defense or for defensive offence, peace cannot be achieved.
Mirza Ashraf
“Defensive Offense”…..that’s a new one.
If naked aggression, belligerence, attacking and killing non-Muslims under the hope of getting either 72 houris or a booty of fair-game females and material assets, is justified as ‘defensive offense’ then I see no point in prolonging this discussion. I like to participate in a discussion among open-minded people. The mind-set of ‘defensive offense’ calls for handling by professionals. I give up happily with a sigh of relief.
By Fayyaz
Reza Aslan quotes famous Christian theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, in his book, Zealot, “Scholars tend to see the Jesus, they want to see. Too often they see themselves-their own reflection-in the image of Jesus they have constructed”.
I think it is also true about other religions. It is not just historians, but ordinary folks also create a picture of prophet as well as religion that is far from truth and reality.
The believers who want to portray Islam, or any other religion, as a religion of peace; they can find a lot of material to support it. The critics who want to portray Islam, or any other religion, an ideology of aggression, they won’t be disappointed either and will find plenty of such material and interpret it according to their cause. But in fact the true picture is much more different, complex and humanistic as compared to what both sides’ extreme interpretations project. One can find in each religion’s history, human drama of compassion, mercy as well as willingness to use sword when the circumstances warranted, both legitimate and illegitimate.
Non-religious ideologues,: for example atheists, are not far behind either. In fact one can find more use of sword than compassion or mercy in their history. They label religion as curse, disease and opium for masses. They wrap themselves in fancy slogans like “Humanism” and free the humanity from curse of religion, but do not hesitate to slaughter and gas religious believers or destroy their property and places of worship if they come in their way. The hatred and anger drips from every word of some of the atheist’s writings when they talk about religion.
Secular nations, who claim to be peace loving nations, are not clean either. From WWI to present day, one can hardly count how many innocent civilians have been killed in the name of peace. Only nation to use the atomic weapon was a secular nation.
The killing of innocents, no matter what the motive, religious or non-religious, and no matter who is responsible, is deplorable.
The solution suggested for Muslims to modify the religion is neither practical nor the ideal solution, except that Religion and State should be separate. The West progressed, not because they modified the religion, but because they separated it from state.
I think most of the Muslim nations, despite all the noise, chaos and fights , are nudging in that direction. What is holding them back is not the Islamists, but liberals who are short sighted and always make the wrong choice of joining the tyrants and dictators instead of tolerating the hard- ship of rough road to democracy.
Fayyaz
Whether a thing, idea or deed is good or bad is an instinctive determination. Instincts are a gift of Nature like the proverbial basic senses. Acclaimed good or acclaimed bad is a dogmatic determination. Determinations made under the influence of years of indoctrination and dogma are, by definition, devoid of reason and rationale. I have no idea what blood letting events of mass scale have been referred to in “Non-religious ideologues,: for example atheists, are not far behind either. In fact one can find more use of sword than compassion or mercy in their history”
One has to be careful to distinguish between Atheism and Secularism. While the former is absence of Faith in any deity, the other is a system of governance that mandates State policies to be free from all religious injunctions. What Secular governments do or did in past, has nothing to do with Atheists. Besides Atheists are lot of individuals who can not be associated en bloc to any policy, style or commonality of conduct.Atheists are just plain individual without a collective personality.
Religion, one or any, is irrational although attempts are made all the time to prove that it is.Just to elaborate the point one can take the institution of Prayer and Futility of Prayer
Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, “Every Sunday in every church in Britain the entire congregation prayed for the royal family. Should they not be healthier and fitter than ordinary people for whom only friends and relatives pray” He found no statistical difference.
Conviction can be evil. The Oxford theologian Richard Swinburne justified holocaust in a TV discussion, that it gave Jews wonderful opportunity to be…noble.
The influence of religion is so pervasive that courts constituted to uphold law and dispense justice, bend over backward to accord privileges to religious institutions. Even in an avowedly secular country like the USA, the Supreme Court gave an exemption to a church in New Mexico to let its members use hallucinogenic drugs because the members felt that the drugs improved their understanding of religion. Ordinary mortals are, however sent to jail for long terms for possession of an ounce of marijuana. The Supreme Court did not pay any heed to the established efficacy of marijuana in reducing the pain and nausea of patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.
In 2006, Christian groups sued the universities for enforcing anti discrimination laws against homosexuals. On April 10, 2006, LA Times published the news.
In officially secular countries, religion has become free enterprise with fierce competition for donations.
Religious fanaticism is rampant in the US. George Bush Sr said “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens”. David Mills in Atheist Universe describes how he was threatened by the police, to whom he had gone for protection before demonstrating against the faith healer, who advised the diabetes and cancer patients to throw away Insulin and chemotherapy.
Religion gets away with murder based on interpretation of religious texts or the sayings of long gone sages. If one objects to the privilege, it is an infringement on religious liberty, or worse, blasphemy. Murder of Salman Taseer on Jan 4, 2011, was endorsed not just by the fanatic mullahs but religious minded lawyers and politicians as well.
Theological opinions can not be proved or disproved according to any rhyme, reason or logic, but offering a different opinion especially in Muslim countries is hazardous.
Roman Catholics list 5120 saints with areas of expertise like abdominal pain, broken bones, anorexia, and bomb technology.
Monotheistic Creeds:
Gore Vidal. “From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as Old Testament, have evolved Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are literally patriarchal…hence the loathing for females”.
The oldest, Judaism, is obsessed with sexual restrictions.
In the first century A.D, Jesus offered an egalitarian version of Judaism. It remained so and its leaders suffered horrible torture for its principles. But the moment it was accepted by Emperor Constantine as state religion, its followers perpetrated the same reign of terror, its pioneers had been subjected to, on those who did not accept the faith.
In the seventh century A.D, Mohamed the prophet of Islam preached equality, justice and peace. Not quite abolishing slavery, he ordained the same treatment of slaves as for other members of the household. He offered near equal status to women, bestowed property rights, albeit half of that of men, the right to choose their spouse, the right to divorce with due process, (not as easy as for men-one two three and you are free) and the right to work. He restricted the number of simultaneous wives to four, as long as the husband treated them equally in every way (Every way only means food, shelter and clothing but does not cover love, affection and sexual congress).
Therefore, I would recommend being careful, NOT casual, before remarking that anti-religion ideologues used naked sword rather than compassion in dealing with religious people.
1-With all due respect, your recommendation is rejected because it has no merit.
Atheism is no different than an organized religion. I have argued about it before and there is no point in rehashing it. There are Atheist Churches and treated like Churches by Law. Please read below: ( From Wikipedia)
“The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Courtprecedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.[11][12]
There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy.[13][14][15][16] Some of the Churces are-
First Church of Atheism, North Texas Church of Free Thought, Houston Church of First Thought”
2- I do not think , I need to add any more what I already wrote. It still stands.
Unfortunately I will be away for three weeks. We may take up this topic on some other time. Thanks for your comments.
Fayyaz
“Defensive Offense” is a very old term of warfare. Generally in the history of warfare three terms are reviewed by the political scientists. First is, “Offense” which is war without any reason or objective, such as Vietnam War participation by USA. Second is, “Defensive Offence” which is a war where a nation or a state foresees that another state is preparing for war against it or is making very dangerous moves and preparation for war. The modern term of “pre-emptive strike” is based on the old term of “defensive offense.” Reza Aslan’s work on Jesus’s historical role is based on the theory of “defensive offense” where the Romans foresaw that Jesus might create a greater problem for their Empire and thus crucified him. The third term is “just war” theory which was better clarified by St. Augustine. Islam presented its own theory of just war in the form of “da’waa.”
I would suggest to please do read a very important and interesting book–WAR, TERROR & PEACE in the QUR’AN and in ISLAM: Insight for Military & Government Leaders–written by T.P. Schwartz-Barcott, with a preface by General Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (Ret.) and published by Army War College Foundation Press, USA.
Mirza