I'm pretty confident the violent fundamentalist Muslim nutjobs don't speak for all of Islam in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent the mainstream of Christian thought.In response to a comment I made in response to Jeff's post, JB of B/X Blackrazor stated:
Personally, I'm more in favor of converting Christian extremists to Islam. Islam already teaches that Jesus was the Messiah; what more are they going to get from Christians?I'd like to take some time with this topic because not only is it important, but I believe it is relevant to the OSR. Many (if not all) of us have spent hours pouring over older editions of all sorts of RPGs. We have done so for a variety of reasons from creating retro-clones, to creating new RPGs based on older rule sets, to actually playing these older games, to using them as an inspiration for playing newer games. There are plenty of examples of OSR bloggers who have deconstructed the evolution of rules in an attempt to figure out which incarnation works best for them (see my current attempt to mess around with OD&D magic, for example).
The key here, is that without a close examination of these original documents, the OSR would not exist. The statements above by both Jeff and JB run counter to this fundamental truth about how we do our hobby. I have long read, enjoyed and respected both Jeff and JB so what I am trying to say is not meant to insult, diminish or dismiss either of these two. In fact, my respect for them is the very reason I am writing this post.
Statements like those made above demonstrate that those who have made them have not gone to the source material and spent time to understand them. I'm sure everyone of us can find examples of statements made by our fellow gamers about any edition of D&D which demonstrates that they have not taken the time to understand why people like to play different editions or even to read the rules of those editions. Even I am guilty of making assumptions about 4th edition without ever having sat down to read those rules.
In light of this, I'd like to invite both Jeff and JB (as well as all of us) to take some time to deal with the original source material for both Christianity and Islam. To give us a start, let me give you a short, comparative list of things Islamic texts say about Mohammed and what Christian texts say about Christ:
- Mohammed condones lying in three instances: war, reconciling people and husband to wife.
- Mohammed was involved in slavery and slave trade. He would use his profits to purchase warhorses and weaponry in order to wage war.
- Mohammed coercively forced conversion and prayer.
- Christ is both God and Man, of one essence with both the Father and the Spirit.
- Christ asked us to love one another — even our enemies.
- Christ sacrificed Himself for our salvation.
If we accept that Mohammed and Christ are the prime examples of what it means to be human and what our behavior as human beings ought to be to their respective followers, than it should be relatively obvious that warfare and the mistreatment of human beings (especially women) are legitimate expressions of Islam. Whereas they are foreign to a proper expression of Christianity.
To answer Jeff's comment, what we have deemed as "radical" in Islam is actually able to stand on very firm theological ground. Whereas there are peace-loving Muslims, there is no such thing as a peaceful version of Islam.
To answer JB's comment, Islam understands Jesus to be a prophet, but denies the crucifixion, the resurrection and His divinity. Whereas Islam insists that Allah is a distant transcendental being who is completely separate from his creation, Christianity insists that God Himself loves us so much that He took on our humanity, died with it, resurrected it and ascended with it into heaven so that we might be able to share in His very being and His eternity. What does someone gain from converting to Christianity? God Himself.
17 comments:
I don't see how I need to judge the tenets of either religion before I can decide to be polite to adherents of either faith.
@ Fr.Dave:
Sorry...I was half-asleep and a feeling a bit snarky today when I posted my earlier comment.
To be more clear:
I find the idea that the best remedy to Islamic extremism is conversion to Christianity offensive on many levels.
I find the need to make a "show of strength" to be a fairly un-Christian sentiment, in every sense of the term.
I feel that our own actions should be directed by our belief in a loving God, rather than hinge on the actions (and reactions) of others whether they are coming from Arab TV or Fox News. I agree with Mr. Rients that we can be polite to the adherents of any particular faith (i.e "having tolerance," "loving others as ourselves," etc.) REGARDLESS.
Hey, but I'm a Christian after all. I thought the USA should have "turned the other cheek" when 9/11 happened. I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but that's my belief...what can I say?
And I DO think it's all right to poke fun at organized religions...but I wouldn't piss on the Eucharist, I wouldn't bulldoze the Jews' Wailing Wall, and I wouldn't draw Mohammed (I don't know what he looks like anyway...I can't imagine a whole lot of flattering images being depicted).
I do believe there's more than One Path to God, and I allow others to walk their own.
; )
FrDave, forgive me if you detect any harshness in this post. It is not my intent to be harsh.
It is easy to find "naughty" things in any of the world's religious traditions. It is a lamentable practice to search through another tradition and pick-out the naughty things, present them out of all historical context, and then say, "This represents true ______ [Islam/Mormonism/Hinduism/whatever]."
It's not just the non-Christian traditions that have suffered from this sort of treatment. Countless persons have ransacked both the Old and New Testaments for the "naughty" parts, and then trashed Christianity, Paul, and Jesus Christ Himself based on such treatment.
In my opinion, it serves no beneficial purpose to essentially tell others, "People that you revere spiritually are a bunch of losers." I've never seen anyone respond favorably to such treatment. After all, plenty of non-believers say Jesus and His apostles are a bunch of losers. Do any Christians respond favorably to that? Of course not. We respond by telling the critics that they have taken things out of context, and by pointing out various good things in our religious tradition. That's how non-Christians also defend their own religious beliefs.
(To take just one example from Islam: It stamped-out the female infanticide that was practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia.)
As someone who tries to be a Christian, I make it a point to never criticize another person's religious beliefs. I respect any and all spiritual traditions that reach out towards the good. As a Christian, I believe that all of our spiritual aspirations will ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. All of mankind's hopes are met in Him. He will save us all, every one.
By praising Christ (rather than by denigrating non-Christian spiritual teachers) and by trying (however unsuccessfully) to be Christ-like, I hope that I can help others find the same solace and strength that I find in Christ.
OH...forgot to mention:
Fr.Dave: I both appreciate and respect you, your perspective (as a Christian gamer), and your blog...one of the reasons I continue to read it!
Peace & Love
I want to echo what Geoffrey states, your bullet point list comparing Christ to the Islam prophet is quite self serving, it is quite easy to make a list that picks the worse of Christianity and the best of Islam to show just the opposite. So as Geoffrey says, it is best to not try to categorize religion and beliefs in such a manner, they are quite complex and there is both great and terrible details in all of them.
I think your idea of trying to relate this topic to OSR could be interesting, but ultimately this was simply a pro-christian anti-islam sentiment.
Jeff,
I don't take issue with you choosing to be nice (thanks for that, BTW). I take issue with your characterization of "fundamental" Islam vs. "other types" of Islam.
JB,
No problem (and thanks for the kind words). Just so you know (as Christ showed by going to the Cross) there are ways of demonstrating strength without violence. Please note, I am also choosing not to participate by drawing Mohammed; however, I can be very sensitive on the issue of Islam. Christianity (especially Orthodox Christianity) has been victimized for centuries by practitioners of Islam and continue to suffer to this day. There is nothing wrong with being respectful, but one has to be honest as well.
Geoffrey—
There is nothing wrong with apologetics. It is a practice that every faith uses. In fact, philosophers and politicians use it on a regular basis as well. Please note: I never once said that Mohammed is a loser. Rather, I pointed out the natural consequences of using him as the prime example of human behavior.
As far as Jesus and His apostles being losers — truth be told they were losers. They were a bunch of uneducated hicks from a backwater. Jesus Himself suffered a death so humiliating, Romans refused to subject their fellow Roman citizens to it. He is descended from foreigners, adulterers, murderers and at least one prostitute. The remarkable thing about Christianity is how honest it is about this — it is all there for everybody to read. Despite this reality, these losers went on to conquer the world without ever lifting a sword.
"I take issue with your characterization of "fundamental" Islam vs. "other types" of Islam."
Well I think your analysis solely by scripture may be flawed. How many Muslem nations actually practive slavery, for instance?
Jeff,
According to a 2009 report by the U.S. State Department http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/index.htm Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mauritania, Chad, Sudan, Niger and Eritrea are Tier 3 countries — the worst offenders in terms of human trafficking. Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Lebanon are on the Tier 2 Watchlist – one step away from being Tier 3.
Geoffrey and Jeff have pretty much summed up what I feel about the original post.
As for the State Department report, I'd point out this page: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/124799.htm
While Africa is certainly awash in human trafficking (as it's a complete economic and governmental basket case of a continent), you do a disservice to not point out those Tier 2 Watchlist nations including far larger chunks of the world's population (which also happen to be non-Muslim). Specifically, China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Argentina and Venezuela.
Just an observation: much of these comments don't actually deal with the meat of what I've actually said. Rather, they criticize me for saying it in the first place. The irony is that those who came up with the idea for 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' wanted to do so in defense of the freedom of speech.
People who are against Islam, prefer to believe an Islamophobe over a Muslim....but just in case anyone is interested.......
1.Mohammed condones lying in three instances: war, reconciling people and husband to wife.
2.Mohammed was involved in slavery and slave trade. He would use his profits to purchase warhorses and weaponry in order to wage war.
3.Mohammed coercively forced conversion and prayer.
These are all incorrect.
1. Lying is not condoned. However, if someone's life was in danger because of being a Muslim---they are allowed to say they are not Muslim.---because life is precious.
2. slavery existed during the time of the Prophet(pbuh) but both he, and the Quran, promoted freeing of slaves.
3. There is no coersion in religion----particularly Islam ---because Islam is not just about outwardly following "rules"---it is about "intentions" also. Therefore---no one can be forced to believe as this is an internal matter.
Defense of freedom of speech---this is also incorrect---If they had wanted to defend freedom of speech against threats of voilence, they could have done so without involving the Prophet(pbuh) so that Muslims and Non-Muslims could have protested TOGETHER. This is simply about Muslim-bashing under the guise of freedom of speech.
Pictures are worth a thousand words. How many religions condone this? http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2009/11/terrorism-thats-personal.html
Kat,
Thanks for taking the time to actually deal with the specifics what I said. I appreciate it. My reactions:
1. So . . . he does condone lying.
2. Sunan Al Bayhaqi recounts the slave trade.
3. al-Shinqiti: “Those who refuse to pray, stand above them with a sword or stick, and command them—‘Pray!’—and if they refuse, smite them until they either pray or die.”
On that last note, as an Orthodox Christian, I encounter examples of people coerced to become Muslim on a regular basis because our Synaxarion is filled with martyrs murdered in the name of Allah and his prophet.
Lastly, the reason freedom of speech has been attacked is specifically because Mohammed was depicted. As a Christian, I may be offended by depictions of Christ being urinated on — but also as a Christian I am very aware that God gave everyone the freedom to accept or reject Him. While I will certainly voice my objection to such a depiction, I am not going to threaten to kill who ever did it (unlike so many Muslims have done to various writers, artists and journalists for the things they have drawn or written about Islam).
In essence, the OP's argument seems to be based on his view that he understands Islam better than Muslims do.
Religion is often humble in much the same way that it's loving.
In my experience, people who base their self-image around an ideology (whether political or religious) almost always have a shared assumption, which other people seem not to have.
That assumption is the idea that ideologies make you do things, rather than allowing you to do things.
For example, one person spends their life running a free medical clinic. The other spends their life torturing women to death. When asked why, both respond "the Bible commands me to" (you could substitute Marxism for Christianity in this story if you wanted to).
Many Christians will come up with an elaborate text-quoting explanation of how only the first person was following 'true' Christianity (while Richard Dawkins would have an explanation of the opposite).
Whereas most people, I think, would understand what was really happening: that the first person was the kind of person who wanted to run a free medical clinic, while the second was the kind who liked torturing women.
anarchist,
I will be the first person to admit that there are people out there that will use any 'ism' to justify any kind of behavior. The technical term for this is eisegesis — reading into the text. The real challenge in life is to live by exegesis — reading out of the text. I have attempted to do this with Islam. There are logical outcomes to various theological and philosophical systems that express themselves in how people behave. Islam has been fairly consistent with its behavior patterns for 1200 years. This is not an accident.
JB said: "I do believe there's more than One Path to God, and I allow others to walk their own."
Really? And yet you claim to follow Christ? Jesus said He "is THE way" - John 14:6.
Geoffrey said: "It is easy to find "naughty" things in any of the world's religious traditions. It is a lamentable practice to search through another tradition and pick-out the naughty things, present them out of all historical context, and then say, "This represents true ______ [Islam/Mormonism/Hinduism/whatever]."
Huh? Have you ever read the Koran? Have you ever read about the life of Muhammad? Jihadists are following the example of Muhammad. Why do you think there were countless Muslims all over the world shouting for joy in the streets after 9/11?
Geoffrey said: "As someone who tries to be a Christian, I make it a point to never criticize another person's religious beliefs. I respect any and all spiritual traditions that reach out towards the good. As a Christian, I believe that all of our spiritual aspirations will ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. All of mankind's hopes are met in Him. He will save us all, every one."
Just like Jesus, Paul, etc. never criticized another person's religious beliefs? Wait a minute, they DID criticize other people's religious beliefs. Quite harshly, even. And Christians are called to #1. imitate Jesus (& Paul, as he imitated Christ), & #2. examine everything, helping others to see the truth from error.
And no, Jesus doesn't save everyone. In fact, no one speaks more about Hell in the Bible than Jesus.
Harvicus said: "I want to echo what Geoffrey states, your bullet point list comparing Christ to the Islam prophet is quite self serving, it is quite easy to make a list that picks the worse of Christianity and the best of Islam to show just the opposite."
OK, I give up, where in the Bible does Jesus tell His followers anything like "Slay the infidel," condoning His followers assassinating harmless people just for insulting him, or leading His followers in raids against caravans for looting purposes, or taking hostages for ransom?
I can find passages where Jesus told His followers to turn the other cheek, to bless those who curse you, & to put your sword away since His kingdom is not that kind of kingdom, but nothing like what we find in Islam.
kat said: "3. There is no coersion in religion----particularly Islam ---because Islam is not just about outwardly following "rules"---it is about "intentions" also. Therefore---no one can be forced to believe as this is an internal matter."
Really? Then what about the Hadith that says "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him"? And before you try the lame defense of "well, you're not a Muslim, so you don't know what Islam is about..." Then who are you to disagree with all those Muslims the world over who practice that very thing - killing people for converting out of Islam?
And what about the jizyah, where Christians & Jews had to pay a religion tax, but pagans had to convert or die? "There is no coercion in religion," except for when there is. This is typical Koranic double speak. Say whatever is expedient, as practiced by Muhammad.
anarchist said: "Whereas most people, I think, would understand what was really happening: that the first person was the kind of person who wanted to run a free medical clinic, while the second was the kind who liked torturing women."
Then why are so many of the suicide bombers from a single religion? Where are all those people, in the name of Christianity, intentionally blowing themselves up among women & children? When is the last time a group of zealous Christians tried to hijack or blow up random planes?
The typical liberal spin, trying to equate all religions as basically the same, is pure garbage.
Post a Comment